Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Real-world coverage

King Triton though is not the protagonist in the movie, Ariel is; nor his he the principal antagonist, Ursela is. Therefore without some signifigant real-world criteria I'd say that the 2nd prong is also week. Yes, he is a main supporting character, but without some strong real-world evidence, stronger than for those i listed above, his coverage is better represented in a list. It does not need to be lengthy. If the DVD commentary devotes a segment on him rather than a blub, that could be enough.じんない 00:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think removal of fiction articles is a major culprit in the slowdown of wikipedia editors/editing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that interpreting causality is a hopeless venture without some serious data. I likewise think that it is near impossible to invent a scenario where wikia exists but WP:N does not and imagine what the results would be then. Even further I wonder if the diaspora of editors and articles to Halopedia, Lostpedia, etc. isn't a net positive for coverage of those shows. But all of that is beside the point. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it's certainly a net positive for Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, and Gil Penchina. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick reminder that this discussion is distracting us from finally proposing this guideline to the wider public. It all boils down to "Can or should a character who may be notable, have an article until non-subjective real-world notability is established?" If we can agree that it's our goal as wikipedians to improve the encyclopedia, then we automatically have two options - either improve a bad subarticle to an acceptable standalone article when FICT-non-compliance gets noted, or (trim&)merge the bad subarticle into an acceptable list. I am sure there's something in there for every editor (if not - why not then?), and the initial question becomes a non-issue. Can we move on soon, or do we want to go in circles for a while longer? – sgeureka t•c 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Going in circles is fun. ^_^
But seriously, it sounds like this has sparked enough of a contention that at least a line or two should be added. Might do so myself if I can find the right place.じんない 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been answered in my opinion. FICT, like every other notability guideline, applies to the subject not the article. If we think that some evidence exists indicating all three prongs are met, good. If not, no go. I know in practice the state of the article matters--a poorly formatted and referenced article faces a grim fate at AfD while a sharp and footnoted article of equal notability will be quickly kept (usually). If we are waiting on research or speculation, I'm sure the AfD would treat it like we treat subjects which are awaiting sources, delete it until the sourcing shows up. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of going in circles, how does this proposal differ from the FICTs under discussion at the RFC on FICT in April, and the RFC on FICT in June? Go ahead and present this proposal to the wider public; I just think you will end up with the same result as summer 2008 — with no consensus and then editwarring over the essay/historical/proposed tags. How does this proposal differ from past proposals that failed? --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That's an easy question. Those versions of fict were focused on declaring classes of articles worthy of inclusion regardless of the subject. So we spent a lot of ink on "spin out" articles and "episode" articles and so forth. Further the actual text of the guideline (here it is in april) was just a mess. I mean read that and tell me what the guideline says about articles? In 2 sentences or less. You can't, because it is all over the place. What would we have found consensus to enact? The current version of fict is slimmed down, talks little about content and talks a lot about subjects. I think it is a superior text to the past versions. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Now compare the current proposal to FICT as it existed on June 3, 2008, when it was proposed for global acceptance and was opposed by a majority of editors. Note how often "coverage" was mentioned in that proposal. The current FICT is half as short, but still mentions coverage several times, and completely ignores whether a fictional element may be well-known. How would the current FICT apply to Fictional history of Spider-Man, which has survived two[1] [2] AFDs?
My views may be in the minority among editors who have commented on policies and guidelines, but I think my views about major characters or iconic characters or characters that have been around for years or characters appearing in multiple fictional works are shared by many more editors who have written and edited fictional character articles, and may not have ever commented on a policy or guideline.
Consider the results in these AFDs for articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains: Blizzard (comics), Ego the Living Planet, Halflife (comics), Mammomax, Mathemanic, Melter, Mister Negative, Morlun, Omega Red, Plunderer, Ringer (comics). There was no consensus to delete any of those.
Consider the results in these AFDs for articles in Category:Coronation Street characters: Roy Cropper, Molly Compton, Teresa Bryant, Kirk Sutherland, Bill Webster, Ashley Peacock, Claire Peacock, Rosie Webster. There was no consensus to delete any of those. And that was before people figured out that six of those were nominated by a blocked user, who commented in several of them. Coronation Street has been around for almost 50 years and the 7,000th episode is going to air soon.
The question is not whether you or I understand this proposal, but whether editors notorious for redirecting/merging/AFDing fictional topics will. I'll read a policy or guideline saying add real world coverage and I'll look for sources and add it to the article. Other people will read the same policy or guideline and try to get rid of the article altogether. --Pixelface (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think the discussion of "main" or "well known" or anything like that is the subject of this guideline. It likewise isn't a reasonable policy proscription. We can't write a policy that will get consensus that says "every main character of a show gets an article". Or "every show gets a "list of..." article". We already know there isn't consensus for that. All we are trying to do here is make an incremental step toward widening what coverage we do give. And it is incremental. Of all the fiction articles we have, this guideline probably applies to <10% of them. But it is a reasonable step. It is a step that has rough approval from people on either side of the debate. And it is a step that is consonant with most of the policies and guidelines on the subject as written.
That being said, nothing we write here can stop someone from either ignoring this guideline or reading it maliciously. We note multiple times that sourcing needs to exist on a subject not in the article, but that won't stop people from ignoring it, just like they ignore it now. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And that's part of the issue here - this guideline should not be telling people what to do - it is only an assessment tool. If articles are going to AFD, there are processes that should be done (though not required) such as what's outlined at WP:BEFORE, in as much as those other process-oriented documents describe them, but we don't want to make that FICT, WP:N, or other SNG's job for the issues of weighing down the text. We obviously do want to keep track (if this is made a guideline) if there are repeated abuses of it so that we can adjust its language in either direction to stem those off but as Protonk stated, if there is a persistent editor that wants to merge or create articles, FICT's not going to be what stops him. (And knowing this is probably PF talking about TTN, and the fact that a recent proposed "E&C3" case was closed pending the confirmation and practices of this FICT, it makes sense to see what happens in a couple months should this become a guideline to see if TTN is using this as a basis to determine if there's any action to go forward on him). --MASEM 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This (potential) guideline is not an assessment tool; this is not FACR. It should be telling editors what is considered evidence of notability for fictional elements. Editors decide if Wikipedia should have an article about a topic at AFD, and it's fine if people give their opinions that a work is important or a character is important at the AFD, because it's okay to give your opinions at AFD. What's not okay is people at AFD saying "No, no, your opinion doesn't count, because WP:FICT says..."
Nobody is required to read any policies or guidelines before they make an article on Wikipedia. So the guideline will only be read after the fact. "Why is there an article on Spider-Man, but the article about a comic book character I created myself keeps getting deleted?" "Well, nobody thinks your character is notable and nobody can find any evidence of notability..." "Well what's considered evidence of notability?" SNGs tell editors what is considered evidence of notability for certain topics. All kinds of people have misapplied FICT in the past — I'm talking about any editor who redirects/merges/AFDs articles for "failing" FICT. It was Gavin.collins who nominated Zerg and Protoss for deletion[3] [4] "per WP:FICT" — as if nobody has ever heard of Zerg or Protoss. FICT is not a test that articles "pass" or "fail." If there's a persistent editor who wants to redirect, merged or delete every fictional topic they can find, FICT should not enable them. You've already revealed your bias, when you said "I do believe that TTN's ultimate goal is correct..." (That was an answer to a question by a user who was banned at the time by the way, and is here again now, unfortunately...) --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"unfortunately"? You're railing against consensus there ;) nb: I've never heard of "Zerg or Protoss" — and didn't bother opening the links. fyi, I posed you a question at your RfC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a notability guideline. "Well-known" is a synonym of notable[5]. This is not a policy; it's a guideline. Nobody's suggesting we create a policy that says "every main character of a show gets an article." But the articles are already here. Editors, out of no coordination, spontaneously and independently created articles for major characters of fictional works — although that may have something to do with Wikipedia is not paper on meta, which said as far back as seven years ago "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." The talkpage there shows that someone else wrote "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character" and that Jimbo Wales said "I agree with this one completely." but it is difficult to tell where the original discussion took place. Perhaps on Nupedia. Maybe someone made it up. Although the discussion appears to have actually happened — in September 2008 Jimbo Wales said "The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault..." and "my own views have changed substantially" — which is no surprise really, since Wikicities (now called Wikia) was founded in late 2004 and it generates revenue from articles on all kinds of fictional elements.
What do you think is the goal of this guideline? What do you think are the two "sides" in the debate? Whether a fictional element is notable or non-notable? Whether a fictional element should have an article or not? Whether a fictional element should have an article, or be an section in another article or list, or be a redirect? There are all kinds of ways to write this proposal so it can't be read maliciously. Past versions of FICT were ignored all the time, because they didn't have actual consensus in practice among the majority of editors. Consider the AFD for Travis Bickle. What's the point in writing another FICT that won't have actual consensus in practice? --Pixelface (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the old guideline suffered from bloat and scope creep, and was based on the notion of presumed notability. This one is cleaner, and it relaxes the sourcing requirements to allow stuff like developer blogs and DVD commentary to help satisfy the inclusion standard. Randomran (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The other way is that this reflects observed behavior at AFD and other places when articles are up for discussion, instead of trying to create guidelines. Yes, the three prong test is new, but when this was reviewed by editors involved, it was clearly the right set of considerations that made or break an article at AFD; the language has only been tweaked to prevent gaming the system either way for notability purposes. --MASEM 14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Which AFDs? --Pixelface (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

As I said on various talk pages, this proposal seems to be nearing consensus, so I wanted to make sure there was a well-publicized final round of comments so nobody got blindsided. This proposal has its origin in an attempt to write a fiction notability guideline that was descriptive of the sorts of reasoning that led to articles being kept or deleted on AfD, as opposed to one that tried to argue from first principles. At this point it's been thoroughly worked over by a diverse crowd, but we want to make sure it has wide consensus before we tag it as a guideline.

I know that notability of fiction articles is an extremely divisive subject, with strong feelings on each side. I would point out, however, that the hardline inclusion/exclusion positions, at this point, clearly do not enjoy consensus. The best we are going to come to is a middle ground. I would ask, thus, that you evaluate this proposal not in terms of whether it's everything you want, but in terms of whether it seems like a livable compromise in a long-standing and divisive dispute.

Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought for application I just had when browsing some articles: what would FICT do when applied to character pages such as List of James Bond henchmen in Casino Royale (I think I was involved in an AfD for a similar topic, which is why this spurs my curiosity now). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We are specifically avoiding the issues of lists pending the resolution of the RFC at WP:N, which, even though there's suggested support of non-notable lists of the example nature you give, we don't want to make any presumptions on that. Should the WP:N RFC confirm that we can make such lists, we were planning to address this in a separate guideline. --MASEM 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Lists quickly looked like an area that could derail getting consensus on major points of agreement. So we've punted on that. I'm not thrilled with the decision, but it was clearly the necessary thing to do to get guidance in place on the issues we have consensus on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here. Probably need a header box on WT:N for this. --MASEM 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, I can't believe I forgot about that discussion... show's how long this thing's been going on :P We really should put that somewhere when inviting comments, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Where's the notability guideline RFC that's discussing such lists? I don't see it at WT:N; am I missing something? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Err, see the comment I made about (must have mistyped this, but don't want to derail the thread) --MASEM 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"Pending the resolution of the RFC at WP:N"? Aervanath posted the results in October — 2 1/2 months ago. It's over. What pending resolution are you talking about? You and Randomran have been stalling for weeks. --Pixelface (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath's posting of the stats and obvious conclusions was to simply close the RFC, Randoman has someone else (who I don't know who it is) who is not involved at all working on what the consensus means, instead of just reporting the numbers. The critical evaluation of all the comments is going to be needed to make sure that non-notable list summaries that would help curtail some of the fiction-related issues would be appropriate per consensus. --MASEM 11:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs, you nominated List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day for deletion, and the consensus was keep. I believe you said "it doesn't matter there's other shitty articles like this." The consensus at the AFD for List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights was also keep. So if we were describing practice at AFDs, FICT would say that so far there's no consensus to delete any lists in Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen. --Pixelface (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (added to 09:07, January 10, 2009)
A random thought from a regular contributor to fictional-subject AFDs: I'm not entirely convinced that the three prong test has consensus in anything like all situations. One common situation that I don't think it covers is character articles describing major characters that appear in multiple notable works; my experience at AFD seems to be that such articles are mostly kept, regardless of whether any "real world" information is available for them. At a minimum, there does not seem to be consensus to delete. Recent examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Hamilton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponder Stibbons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Stupid Johnson. These three articles fail the three prong test, to all appearances. These characters' only importance is that they are important to understanding a major work of fiction. There is no real-world information in their articles, nor was there suggestion that any could or would be included in the AFDs for them. Yet, there was apparently no consensus to delete them. Therefore, I can only conclude that the test described in this proposal does not entirely reflect consensus. There are major exceptions to it, apparently in cases where only the first two items are satisfied, there are multiple works involved, and the works in question are *particularly* notable. There may well be other cases. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a flat misreading of all three quoted debates. Each of those could have been closed as "merged, two were closed as "no consensus". I'll go further to say that the chief source of "keep" comments seemed to be a bare assertion of importance rather than some claim that characters in multiple works are kept more frequently. This guideline (see the section above) takes pains to avoid the "multiple works==keep" problem because there has been no consensus to create such a broad plank in the past. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. That said, given that Gil Hamilton appears to be the main character of a popular SF series, I would be shocked if sources from reviews (SF fandom is very, very diligent about having published reviews of stuff), interviews with Niven, etc could not be found. It might require recourse to (*gasp*) actual paper, but commentary discussing him directly is surely available. The other two are trickier, but seem to me to fall into a middle category that is, generally, kept or deleted based more on the happenstance of who shows up than on any actual principle. I think you're hard-pressed to make a serious argument that there is a consensus for an article like Ponder Stibbons to exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention AfDs ≠ consensus. People show up for the AfD's they feel strongly about; that's going to give you a skewed view of what people find acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This guideline will (hopefully) also be used for merger debates and helping decide when to spin out. Just because a "bad" article survives an AfD, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be merged, and just because a character meets all three prongs (e.g. Brother Justin Crowe), doesn't mean he must be spun out now. FICT leaves enough wiggle room for editorial consensus when the prongs are only somewhat met or could reasonably be met in the near future. – sgeureka t•c 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In answer to Phil Sandifer, I don't think we can roll out WP:FICT as a guideline just yet. I still believe that the test for "Importance within the fictional work" is too subjective. Although this is just my opinion (contested by many editors I note), there is precedent for giving consideration to this view. Article inclusion criteria based, not on evidence, but on editors' opinions tend to get dropped over time - see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Importance#Policy, guidelines, and human bias. Basically WP:IMPORTANCE was dropped as a basis for article inclusion ans was replaced by WP:N on the grounds that "importance" was a concept "so vague that whether any article meets it can be debated endlessly", and was replaced by WP:N which relies on evidence provided by the citation of reliable secondary sources. I think that "Importance within the fictional work" is too vague, and can be automatically discounted as a test becuase every element of fiction passes it. I feel a rewrite of the three pronged test is still necessary before we can go to RFC to obtain wider support for this proposed guideline. I will try to draft an amendment over the next few days. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree JulesH. That's the same thing I've been talking about, major characters that appear in multiple notable works. There was no consensus to delete in any of those AFDs. Regarding the "three prongs", if people think a fictional work is "important", and people think a character is "important" within that work, and if there's outside coverage of the character, the probability that the article will be kept increases. If there's no outside coverage of the character, or if the article doesn't cite any at the time, the probability that the article will not be kept as is increases, but it doesn't mean that the article will be deleted. That's what we should be describing. --Pixelface (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For purposes of trying to figure this out, what would be a "major character that appears in multiple notable works" that would likely otherwise fail the proposes version of FICT, namely by missing the third prong? --MASEM 11:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GNG and SNG

Random comment before I forget. The hardcore notability afficionados are easily recognised by their use of GNG and SNG. Would it be possible to shift a leetle bit towards stating what these terms mean? They confused the hell out of me when I first saw people using them (in a sentence replete with other acronyms). The first time I really felt WP:WOTTA had hit me. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Would you mind making some of the changes? Part of the problem with being an AfD trench warrior is it makes it difficult to spot that kind of language. I would do a poor job of writing this with fresh eyes. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Availability of research

Appologies to Randomran, who created[6] this section out of the wreckage of the section on Systemic bias. I have been bold and deleted it, on the grounds is vague, verbose, disparate and provides no useful guidance (in my view, anyway). My main objection is to the following statement:

"Articles should be evaluated based on their potential to meet this notability guideline, rather than whether they meet this guideline at present"

I am not sure what guidance this section actually offers. What does it mean by potential? Does this mean we should presume unconditionally that a topic will meet this guideline because WP:ILIKEIT? It is not clear how we judge an article's potential. I think we are moving away from the idea that a topic may be presumed to be important or notable if there is evidence cited to support this presumption, towards the idea that a topic can absolutely be presumed to be important or notable on the basis of pure speculation about the topic's potential. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just restored the "Systemic bias" as is was all of, what, yesterday? Now that we've had the BRD, cycle, how about talking it out. Jack Merridew 11:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's supposed to be a pretty uncontroversial statement about how we apply virtually all our content guidelines. (e.g.: If something is NPOV, we don't delete, but make it NPOV. If something is OR, we don't delete, we do some research and verify. Same thing for notability: fix it... if you can. We only delete when it's fundamentally impossible for it to meet the guideline.) It should probably be clarified rather than removed. Randomran (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is what you meant, then this is covered in detail at WP:ATD and does not need to be restated here. I know that Phil and Pixelface are very keen to link WP:FICT with what goes on at WP:AFD, but we need to keep the inclusion criteria seperated from article deletion seperate in our minds, because they are seperate processes which don't always follow each other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to the piece Gavin blockquoted, given the clarification. Determining 'possibility' may vary by editor, though. I would have no objection to that being re-added. I've been bold enough for one day, and don't think this proposal should be such a fast-moving target. As to the 'linkage' … I guess I've not read enough threads, yet ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Qualifying my above comment; I have no objection assuming the guideline finds its way out of the woods to solid ground (i.e. independent sources &c.). Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with it—what does it mean to have the "potential" to meet this guideline? This page boils down to the three pronged test—importance of work, importance within work, and real-world coverage. Notice that none of these depend on the current state of the article. So if the article's current state is not a factor, I understand the "potential to meet" the guideline as: "This article is important within the work, but is not an important work, and has no real-world coverage. However, there are rumors of a film adaptation to be completed in five years, which would lend importance to the work and create real-world coverage. Thus, this article does not meet this guideline, but has the potential to meet it (in five years or so)." That's not a situation we want to create. Since the three-pronged test is completely determined without respect to the current state of the article, the article subject should either pass or fail this guideline at the time of evaluation. I suspect this was not the intent of the sentence, naturally, but that might be the way it's interpreted. Notability cannot be changed through article editing, whereas NPOV, OR, and other Wikipedia rules can. Pagrashtak 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is that the threshold is not actually finding the sources, but indicating their likelihood. The equivalent statement in WP:N is "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." I think a similar statement is even more important here, because there is a terrible bias towards just doing a Google search and calling it a day. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I think you are mixing chalk with cheese. What this guideline is saying is that inclusion criteria for stand alone articles whether there is non-trivial real-world content to write an article. What this guideline is not saying whether or not you should or should not delete articles, as this is decided at WP:AFD, and we are allowing the scope of this guideline to creep beyond inclusion criteria into the realms of deletion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a false dichotomy. Do you really think anyone reads a notability guideline without seeing deletion criteria in it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It's more a matter of staying to scope. One of the lengthier sections of the previous FICT was what to do with non-notable articles. We shouldn't be saying "how" to do anything here, this is only a means of assessment. WP:DP, WP:AFD, and numerous other guidelines prescribe advice on what should be done before and during AFD, and they do refer to the likelihood of meeting notability, not whether at the exact moment of AFD if notability is shown. In the generally handling of fiction articles, that's a great piece of advice, but not for specific determination of meeting the three prongs. We should make sure WP:WAF has information on this process, however, since that's a more appropriate place for it. --MASEM 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm really skeptical that a place other than a notability guideline is the right place for discussions of deletion. People are going to come to this guideline for deletion advice. I mean, they just are. But even still, I think the basic observation that recentist and fannish bias need to be combatted in evaluating the prongs is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I admit the connection you suggest is undeniable, I agree with Masem as WP:FICT is about article inclusion not deletion. Although Wikipedia policies and guidelines are indeed an influence on AfD debates, WP:FICT is just one such guideline, and we don't need to repeat the content of Wikipedia:Deletion policy in every single guideline and policy just because they are an influence on each other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No. But we're not talking about the entire content of the deletion policy. We're talking about, effectively, two sentences that warn against a particularly pernicious tendency. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that in the real-wiki, inclusion criteria and deletion criteria are flip-sides of the same coin. And the observation that fannish bias exists and is a problem needs to be faced and included. As to recentism, I expect so, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to draft a new section entitled "Deletion criteria" if you wish, but be warned that any requirement along the lines that non-notability must be proven will not get my support.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I meant; one can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those desiring to include something. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. On the other hand, the burden of proof is merely finding reason to believe that the guideline *can* be satisfied. Similar language exists in WP:N, and I feel strongly that this aspect should be reflected here as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you set the bar deep enough in the floor, finding 'belief' should present no obstacle. Frankly, I'm not seeing any barrier to inclusion here. Jack Merridew 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the issues of scalability have come up elsewhere before (e.g. there is one episode per week, 5 main characters per show, but only one quality-concerned fan editor for every ten highly notable shows), can I suggest that the line is extended to:
"Articles should be evaluated based on their potential and likelyhood to meet this notability guideline in the future, rather than whether they meet this guideline at present."
If it's obvious that fans make considerable progress to cleanup their mess (e.g. The Simpsons Wikiproject), why should FICT slap their wrist? On the other hand, there are so many bad episode stubs of once highly notable shows whose fandom has mostly moved on to the next show, but where a group of devoted leftover fans will vocally obstruct any attemps of lossfree mergers into lists, but who will also not improve the "standalone" articles. Since AfDs backfire in such cases because of some Google Hits, wikipedia is doomed to keep the bad stubs for a long time until those leftover fans have (hopefully) moved on as well. The term "likelyhood" is intentionally vague and could apply to any time period. – sgeureka t•c 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Self-reply because I may be onto something (or not): This would also work with the current practise of notability-tagged fiction subarticles and also our King Triton discussion. If his article has been tagged for lack of (demonstrated) notability for a year, it's obvious that the likelyhood of future improvement is also minimal, and that he should be merged. Spinning out an article again once FICT is met is never a problem. – sgeureka t•c 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, that sentence sounds like it's OK to make an article on a non-notable subject if the possibility exists that it will become notable in five, ten, or one hundred years. Pagrashtak 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "Articles should be evaluated on their potential, and on the likelihood that sources could be found that would satisfy the three-prong test." That avoids the "maybe someday" problem while still making clear that presentist/fannish bias is unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This statement is still not clear whether it relates to article inclusion or article deletion. If I was a pair of fresh eyes, I would have no idea what this statement refers to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got a clear version in the page atm. Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You cut all the wrong parts :( This way, you are building-in a systemic bias towards works with a devoted fan base. It is becoming clear to me that this version of FICT has seriously confuses the dedication of fans with notability. Jack Merridew 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct link between this and AFD. It simply says we shouldn't conclude that something is non-notable based on its current state, if there's legitimate potential out there. We should clarify this so this doesn't mean "it will be notable when it suddenly increases in popularity 2 years from now", but "it already IS notable, just that we need to give someone time to WP:PROVEIT and WP:AGF that they can (for now). But otherwise, it doesn't say what we do with the non-notable article. We can do any number of things: delete it, redirect it, merge to the series, merge it to the work, merge it to a list... but we don't say what to do here, as we shouldn't. But to say that a notability guideline shouldn't tell people how to decide if something is or isn't notable is like saying medical school shouldn't tell you how to diagnose somebody. Randomran (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree, but practically speaking, the inverse of inclusion is exclusion; the implications are there and can't be avoided. Jack Merridew 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
A topic on an element of fiction that meets all three of the above criteria may qualify for a standalone article, but an article that does not meet these criteria is not necessarily a candidate for deletion. In evaluating whether an article satisfies this guideline, one should consider not only the present state of the article, but also the likelihood that sources exist that could satisfy this guideline. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and should not be deleted on the basis that it fails this guideline if a there are reasonable grounds to presume that evidence exists to satisfy all three criteria. Note that an article that features significant real-world coverage will rarely be deleted.
I don't think the points about systematic bias provide any guidance per se; in my view this issue might be of interest on this talk page, but unless we are proposing specific remedies or advice, then I don't think it has a place within the guideline. Having said that, I feel this amendment addresses the issues about deletion policy raised by Phil and Randomran. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were all opposed to making this about deletion, including you. I'm not comfortable changing this to add guidance about when to delete. Randomran (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction

As it stands, I feel that the test for "Importance within the fictional work" is not a test at all, as passing is a matter of personal opinion, and I have already discussed elsewhere why it is impossible to fail the test of importance. I have therefore drafted some modifications to the three pronged test, and I would beg your indulgance by giving it your attention. I feel this version has a better chance of getting through an RFC, as I think outside editors will quicky pick up on the the fact that the importance test is too vague, and as such risks the whole proposal getting shot down. One change is the requirement that the fictional topic has to be the subject of "significant coverage", an idea stolen from WP:GNG.

The proposed amendment to the Three pronged test (to be renamed the "Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction" is as follows:

Works of fiction, such as books or movies, are presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if they are notable, i.e. they are the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources.
The inclusion criteria for derivative articles that feature elements of fiction (such as characters or episodes) is not limited to reliable and independent sources, provided that topic can pass the following three pronged test:
  • Notability of the fictional work: Elements of fiction may qualify for the their own standalone article if the fictional work from which they are derived cite evidence of notability, on the grounds that the related coverage may go into greater depth about fictional elements than where the notability of a work of fiction is unproven.
  • Significant coverage : The sources should address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive subject. Examples of significant coverage could include: creative influences, design processes, and critical, commercial, or cultural commentary. Sometimes significant coverage can be obtained through citing sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is trivial and is not considered to provide the significant coverage needed to write an encyclopedic article.
  • Real-world coverage: real-world information must exist on the subject, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Topics which are the subject of coverage that is over-reliant on a perspective that is in universe or are solely comprised of plot summary do not qualify for their own article.
It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. What this means for elements of fiction is that, while a book or television episode may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage is trivial or contains only trivial detail or information about the plot. Where there is insufficient significant real-world coverage for standalone article, it may be better to feature material about that fictional element in the article on the overarching topic (such as the fictional work itself) or a related topic (such as the author) that cites evidence of notability, rather than creating a content fork that duplicates coverage of the fictional element in another article.
A topic on an element of fiction that meets all three of the above criteria may qualify for a standalone article, but an article that does not meet these criteria is not necessarily a candidate for deletion. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and should not be deleted on the basis that it fails this guideline if a there are reasonable grounds to presume that evidence exists to satisfy all three criteria. Note that an article that features significant real-world coverage will rarely be deleted.
No part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation; for example, a topic may meet all three prongs above, but may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available.

I commend this version to you in the hope that we can get rid of the subjective test of "importance", an idea which was also jettisoned for the same reason just before the concept of notability was created. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, we've heard you state the same concerns over the last two months. Given how satisfied the rest of the editors here seem to be with this version, trying to change its tone (making it as restrictive as the GNG) is not going to help. Mind you, I'm well aware that should this be a guideline and become abused, we'll need to come back to the drawing board, but at this point, we should not be changing this beyond tiny wording fixes and then see if its acceptable to the rest of the WP population. --MASEM 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're going to have to propose something other than removing the "importance" requirement. I'm still not persuaded it's a bad thing to have, only that we need to find ways to prevent abuse and WP:ILIKEIT. Randomran (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you in most every way, Gavin, but frankly it's time for realpolitik to come into play. However misguided I think Phil &c. are, the only way we're going to be able to regulate and remove a good chunk of the crap is going with what we've got now. I'll settle for that (for now... *evil laugh*) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just read through both the current section on the project page and the above and for the most part, prefer the above. I find the language in the first bullet (Notability of the fictional work) rather contorted, but that's just a nit. The whole notion of offering an exemption to the overall notability guideline is a fatal flaw. This will never fly in the real-wiki.
"Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the general notability guideline."
If the above is the case, then we're at end-of-discussion: Not appropriate for inclusion as a stand-alone article.
Jack Merridew 07:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been a lot of good (and bad) proposals in the last 12+ months to make FICT "better", but most of them ended in "I have an even better proposal". And this is an endless and exhausting process. While Gavin makes some points I agree with, I know that there are going to be editors who'll just hate these points, and we'll never get things done. For that reason, I'll refuse to provide input into potentially good proposals when they go beyond proposing a little tweak here and there. Let's see if the current proposal has consensus before we start discussing a proposal that changes everything that we've been working towards to in the last 2 months. – sgeureka t•c 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that this change is virtually the same as the current draft, but we use the three prongs to establish importance, rather than have a test for importance as one of the prongs. The problem I have with the importance test is, even if a fictional element is important (which they all are), how do you know you have enough encyclopedic coverage to write an article? The answer is if you have enough significant real-world coverage to write an article, then you have your proof that fictional element is important right there, which is more or less the same as the third-prong in the current version. I have drafted this on the basis that this fits in with Masem and Phil's thinking and its effect is the same as the current draft and is no less restrictive. The only difference is that 3-prongs work by spliting the real-world test into two parts: "significant coverage" and "real-world coverage". --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're arguing from the point that FICT helps decide when to spinout new articles and that prong 2 will be viewed (and abused) as a stand-alone prong. Other editors are arguing from the perspective that for years, the old FICT allowed articles to be created just based on the merits of prong 2 and that this can't just be abolished with a snap of the fingers. As much as I think that eventually, prong 1 and 3 are the only prongs that matter, this guideline will not gain consensus from collaborative inclusionists if there isn't at least a transitional common sense prong (prong 2), which will likely be phased out eventually anyway when the current mess has been cleaned up either through mergers or encyclopedic expansion. We shouldn't forget that FICT is not a sledgehammer guideline of vision, but a guideline of consensus in practise, and at the moment, importance within the fictional work is a (but not the) deciding factor in AfDs and some merge discussions, no matter how hard this may be to swallow for some mergist and deletionist editors. – sgeureka t•c 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is as follows. Below is a list of AfDs I've participated in since September. If the guideline would support those that I argued to keep at worst being merged and redirected with the edit history intact, then I support it. If it would result in any of those being redlinked then I can't:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auraya of the White (I argued to keep and added to the article, which was merged)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist (my keep argument and rescue efforts directly persuaded some to argue to keep, which was the end result)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) (I argued to keep; the result was no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (3rd nomination) (again, an article I defended in a previous nomination that I once again argued to keep and once again improved as well that was kept in the end)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (3rd nomination) (I argued to keep this article that I had argued to keep at length in its previous nomination and once gain greatly improved the referencing and out of universe content of the article; the result was "no consensus")
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination) (I argued to keep and although the article was initially deleted after a proactive and productive discussion with the deleting admin, he restored the article and allowed me to merge content to the main article on the series; our efforts were upheld at Deletion Review)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (2nd nomination) (I argued to keep and the close was no consensus leaning towards keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits (I argued to keep, merge, or redirect this article that I created; the article closed as a redirect with the edit history intact)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog (my keep argument and rescue efforts again bore fruit)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Coltons (I argued to keep and made some improvements to the article; article was kept and now we have a better article thanks to my efforts)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends) (I argued to delete and it was deleted)
So, if this draft says Tony Cunningham is deleted, fine, but the ones above that closed as keep should still be closed as keep and those that closed as merged would still be closed as merge; however, if the wording would cause any more of the above to be outright deleted, then I cannot support it. Merging and redirecting is a fair and reasonable middle ground in most instances and we have to allow for that as a compromise as much as possible. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is (and maybe this is just part of the much larger issue) is that we're only deciding on what fictional elements should be represented as full topics, with the presumption that if the topic fails one of the prongs but not all three, that topic should be merged and discussed elsewhere (eg the topic is still covered but just not to the full extent of its own article.). Unfortunately, we have (purposely) not discussed lists as merge target as this is a related, but very different contentious issue. I can see that overall all this should be discussed together, but realistically, we need to make baby steps, to make sure this is ok, and then address other aspects once we know we've got a track that's acceptable.
(To the point of this, I think all of the above save for the MacGyver problems and the Gundam suits confirm the general approach here - those articles that were kept met all 3 prongs, the merged ones didn't; the two lists aren't really covered, but there is an aspect of the lack of second prong importance here as well as third prong failure, but again, this proposed version isn't really targetting how we deal with lists presently.) --MASEM 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if we can agree on what the inclusion criteria for stand-alone topics are, then I agree that will have taken a small step forward. However, the second prong of the test as it stands still does not work because it is self-referencing; we still need to eliminate self-referencing arguments from our guidelines because they don't stand up to peer review. This is why WP:IMPORTANCE was dropped as inclusion criteria in favour of WP:N; notability is evidenced based, which is why it has stood the test of time. I still think we need to eliminate the second prong, and split the real-world test into two parts as I have proposed. Alternatively, we could proceed with what we have got, but sooner or later someone will notice that the test for importance has not got enough clothes to stand on one leg (forgive the mixed metaphors). --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I flatly do not accept the third prong as a requirement, nor does I think the current consensus accept it: it's a step backwards into rejecting good articles. The division into articles is purely a matter of convenience for assisting editing and understanding. Topics in fiction do not need real world importance,or real world coverage--it is enough if the fictional work itself can be shown to have real world importance. the importance of fictional elements must be judged within the fiction itself. It is better of course, if there actually is real world comment on it, and even the occasional real world significance, but there does not have to be independent real world "notability"--the notability, the importance, the significance, the need for encyclopedic coverage, the appropriateness of encyclopedic coverage, of fiction is as fiction. The basic criteria are the importance of the fiction the importance of the element, and the availability of sourced content. Everything else is a bonus.
The simplest way to accommodate the third prong to consensus is to word it:"It is desirable for real world information....
There are some problems with the second prong, too, which needs to expressly make the allowance that the fiction itself is an obvious source for description and obvious uncontroversial common sense conclusion. gain, I think the consensus now holds that, and in many other subjects that fiction.
It would really be a shame to see all the good work that is gone into this wasted. The current version is an over-compromise with the forces of reaction, and will not help in the goal of keeping in good material. (that is, assuming one thinks that the detailed coverage of important fiction is important in Wikipedia. If one doesn't think that, then fork a version of Wikipedia without fiction, for we are unlikely to find a compromise with such a viewpoint. Such a version, as i see it, would have been appropriate to an encyclopedia in the 18th century, when fiction was considered a borderline respectable mode of activity, both for reading and writing. 100 years ago, an encyclopedia would have accepted novels; in 1950, film. I have my own views about the importance that some other forms ought to have for civilized people, but I won't reject the ones i don;t like--history has shown the total unwisdom of such narrow-mindedness. DGG (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with most of this. We on the stricter side have made most of the concessions and compromises in this debate (remember that this proposed guideline is much less stringent than WP:N), but I for one won't budge on this: the third prong is important to ensure an acceptable standard of article and must stay in. The division of content into articles is more than just an arbitrary division done for convenience- rightly or wrongly, an article will inevitably be perceived as an individual, independent unit, one that covers a topic that should be considered as a topic in its own right. And therefore a good article will tell you what the subject is, how it came to be and, importantly, why anyone should care. And please don't try to present the pro third-prong viewpoint as a desire to exclude detailed coverage of fiction- we just want to see it done properly. The goal is not to remove or exclude good articles but to curb the proliferation of poor and trivial ones. Reyk YO! 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Reyk, as without substantial real-world coverage, you can't write an encyclopedic article. As regards the test for "Importance within the fictional work", I don't think DGG's comments that "the importance of fictional elements must be judged within the fiction itself" make the test any clearer. Whether an fictional topic is important or not is a matter of personal opinion, which cannot be added to the article itself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's actually inconsistent with historical encyclopedic traditions. If you look back at the 18th century enclopedias, you will see whole articles written entirely based on primary sources. Heck, even Britannica has those yearly issues with essays in them. This idea of substantial secondary sources is something perceived, but does not reflect the real history of encyclopedia writing. But the whole key is what you say in your last sentence. Whether a topic is important or not boils down to personal opinion; I would much rather err on the sdie of retaining knowledge and being a more comprehensive reference guide than degrading our usefulness and relevance. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Outside of Wikipedia, anyone can write an encyclopedic article on the basis of personal opinion, and the point you are making is that they contained a lot of knowledge and acted as comprehensive reference guides as a result. Things have changed since the 18th century in the sense that, although we still rely on expert opinion, we can ask them to disclose their sources. Whether an fictional topic is important or not is a matter of personal opinion, but if evidence of importance is provided (preferable by citing expert opinion), then we don't have rely on original research to establish importance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say any character who appears in a film as well as game or game as well as comic is notable because of the billions of fictional charcters in existence a much smaller fraction can lay such claims. Thus, a practical measure of notability should not just be secondary sources, but instances in which a character, location, weapon, etc. appears in different kinds of fictional mediums as well. Published strategy guides should also count as reliable sources as not every game has published strategy guides that cover characters and weapons (I can think of many games that I wish did...). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Options instead of three prongs

Instead of three prongs, we need three options. This is a simple enough rewrite:

Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the general notability guideline. For these articles, a fictional element of a notable work should be handled in one of three ways:

  • Deletion, if no suitable parent article exists.
  • Redirection to a suitable parent article, if no out of universe material is present.
  • Merge to a suitable parent article, if a small amount of out of universe material is present.

"Does not meet GNG" means "We can't support a full article on it." Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal is that it does not broaden the inclusion criteria for fiction, which is what Phil and Masem are seeking. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not a bug, it's a feature ;) Jack Merridew 04:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That second prong

I've been trying to let this discussion go on without interference from me in the hopes that some progress could be made that way. I do have to object to the laxness of the second prong. I understand what it's getting at, but it is so subjective that it will lend itself to abuse. There has to be some independent assertion of importance of an item before it can get an article. The first prong can be met by nearly any fictional work that isn't fan-fiction. As it stands, the third prong can be satisfied by things like DVD commentaries, because no one insisted on independent sourcing in the third prong. Now, the second prong is a license to create an article on anything that gets mentioned in a DVD commentary, because there's no requirement that the importance be established by anything but the article creator's opinion.

If you want to back off of a detailed examination in independent sources, and allow a passing mention in independent sources to qualify things for articles based on the first and third prong, I'll bite my tongue. But if something wasn't important enough for any independent source to even mention, it's not important enough for an article.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we spelled out some examples of what isn't allowed to help take care of just "anything" meeting the second prong.

The subject should be an episode or non-cameo character that is important or central to understanding the work as a whole.

I would probably go further and change cameo to minor and episode to element. If anything in a guideline ever needed an example, this prong may actually need some explicit examples of what would not pass it.じんない 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As Masem states, I have been voicing the same concern as Kww for several months. Since it can be argued that any element of fiction is "Important within the fictional work" (otherwise it would not have been created), then the only independent way of establishing this is through the third prong via real-world coverage. In my view, it is impossible to find an example of a fictional element fails the second test. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's only true if your reading of the second prong stops at the title. I mean, I don't see many people mounting a persuasive argument that the captain's chair is central to understanding Star Trek. Or even, frankly, that you can't really understand Pokemon until you have a deep grasp of Clefairy. People may insist that the captain's chair or Clefairy meet the second prong, but I do not think they will persuade anybody, and I do not think that crazed fans of the sort who will assert that Clefairy meets the second prong are going to vote delete no matter what policy we set up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to leave room for wikilawyering, and I think a requirement of some completely independent mention of the item, no matter how brief, is necessary. We have editors on the inclusionist side that have resorted to faking claims of threats against themselves, edit-warring policies and guidelines, and lying in edit summaries in efforts to keep bad articles, and I don't want to leave any handy tools for them around. I'll back away from multiple direct and detailed examinations in the interests of keeping the peace and getting somewhere, but I'm not willing to back off so far as not requiring any mention at all.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One thing I have found over the years is that there is no way to take the tools away from the crazed wiki-lawyers. What we can do is give them to sane people. I think this does a good job of providing a good framework for reasonable discussion. But look, an editor who is faking claims of threats, edit warring, and lying in edit summaries isn't going to be fixed by a policy. They're a pathological case that needs to be banned. And they're going to remain just as toxic no matter what this page says. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is good sense. I think that we have to agree that "importance", subjectively judged and asserted without 'hard' evidence, is a factor in what gets deleted and what does not. I refuse to make this a sufficient condition for inclusion (as Pixelface is arguing for, though we should listen to his examples), but I am ok with it being a necessary condition. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that "importance" is subjective, which is why I think requiring one external source to assert it, no matter how briefly and tangentially, is necessary. That's a hell of a step back from "direct and detailed examination in multiple independent sources", but goes a long way towards providing some objective foundation.—Kww(talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah. You said external, which points you towards secondary. Independent, I think, is too far - it sets the requirement at finding a specific source, as opposed to the likelihood. I think, going that far, we lose the already tenuous support this has among the inclusionist side (who are, it should be noted, in general more hesitant on this talk page than the deletionists). And I'm not convinced, as a practical matter, that independence is needed on AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC)It isn't. To provide an example. Characters of Smallville doesn't have but maybe 2 independent sources (and they are really only used for a single sentence statement), while the rest uses sources that were created from the owners of the subject (i.e. companion books and DVD commentary). You cannot beat the level of real world content in there, but out of like 150 sources (there are 300+, but half of them are just links to filmographies to show that an actor appeared in an episode) only 2 are independent of the subject. I don't believe there is an AfD out there that could delete that article legitimately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, responding to Bignole) True, and "two" is two bigger than "zero". All I'm asking for is "one". I'm not asking for a length restriction, a detail restriction, a context restriction, or a content restriction ... just a demonstration that at least one independent source has mentioned the topic.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair, WP:N surely allows Bulbasaur to exist. But here's the thing - let's imagine a character of a clearly notable television series. The character is a major character, appearing as a credited regular in every episode of the series. Substantial discussion by the writers on DVD commentaries means that the article has a lengthy section about development and the character's thematic role in the overall series. Would such an article be deleted? Under the current situation - with no further guidance - I think such an article would survive. Without recourse to fanboys, I think such an article would survive. So I'm loathe to set the bar such that it wouldn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Bulbasaur doesn't pass WP:N, never has, and probably never will. If you can find a direct and detailed examination in multiple reliable sources that are independent of Nintendo, you'll be the first, and people have been searching for years.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. On a 'list of Pokemon characters' article ,Bulbasaur could be distilled down to 'Bulbasaur is a small blue creature with a plant on its back, Bulbasaur is regularly used throughout the series by Ash. He has appeared in amny of the video games and product tie ins associated with Pokemon. He has been described by one critic as 'blah blah blah'. The rest is cruft. ThuranX (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. I'd not considered the fact that Nintendo Power can't be used in this instance. Though that's a bit of a technicality here, truth be told. Regardless - Bulbasaur seems to me a normal example of what is kept. Some decent in-universe information, a strong case for importance in the work, the work is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Meh. One think I've discovered is that WP:N is, in that respect, the most adverarial of all guidelines toward our editing base. It has to be, because it removes some genuine shit from the encyclopedia. but it also gives us the situation of Bulbasaur where a halfway decent article can be written, yet it is filled with "cruft". I would prefer that FICT let us write that article so long as we can set a guideline that gives us the end result: due weight, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. IF you recall, that is the function of the GNG--not to demand that an article have external sources. That is the means by which the GNG accomplishes its function of meeting core content principles. If we make a guideline that meets those ends but lets us have an article on bulbasaur without cognitive dissonance, good. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I would tend to want to shape this guideline to allow it, but don't want to drop further. Bulbasaur has at least been mentioned by independent sources, so adding a sentence to the second prong to the effect of "To be deemed important, the topic of the article must have been mentioned in at least one independent source" is a guideline that Bulbasaur would readily pass, but would exclude things that are even less notable. "At least as notable as Bulbasaur" harks back to the old Pokemon test, and that had a certain merit.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine an article that would persuasively pass the three prongs but not have a *mention* in an independent reliable secondary source. I can't think of one. What sort of article do you see this guideline as keeping incorrectly? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I feel the same way. Most of the examples we came up with ended up having at least one mention. But I think that misses the point (IMO) of the guideline. My support for this guideline stems from my understanding that the mechanism by which the GNG determines notability isn't fair to fictional subjects. Independent source coverage of fictional elements is idiosyncratic at best--bearing no relation to internal importance or continuity. We accept this arbitrary result because the guideline is so effective and (relatively) objective otherwise. To me, FICT is a way to fill in those gaps--while still demanding some coverage so the article isn't buried in OR. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a point of disagreement: I think the GNG is 100% fair to fictional topics. My support for this guideline comes from a desire simply to see the argument be over with. I've lost the war, and I'm trying to negotiate an acceptable surrender. I've asked for one point, and both of you state that you don't think the criteria I'm asking for will ever make a difference. I don't see the objection.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My objection is that it adds a requirement of content to a guideline that is currently a set of requirements about availability. That is, it adds a point that amounts to a hoop to jump through, but does not seem to actually filter anything that existing hoops don't. That's just going to serve to delete articles that could have passed the guideline. Plus, instruction creep is bad - if we can get by with three prongs, a fourth prong should be avoided. If I thought any of the three existing prongs could be cut without affecting what is and isn't deleted, I'd cut those prongs to to get to as simple a guideline as possible. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As well, I noted over 20 independent sources in the Smallville article, about 10 from TV Guide, some NYTime non-episode summaries, some interviews from a couple of non-WB run fan sites, AOL, E Online, and more. I also note that with all that material collapsed into one article, it makes for a good article. Imagine however, that each character had an article, as if we'd cut that one page into many. Almost all would be easy candidates for AfD. This is exactly was I said here a few says ago. When Notability at the per-character level fails, it can built built in a list-article like the Smallville one. Separately, those are about zilcho, but seen together, the repeated real world content in interviews shows some level of notability for the actors and characters portrayed; and makes a case for an aggregate level of notability. ThuranX (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - so before we continue on this independence argument, kww - can you show me an article that A) Satisfies this proposal, B) Lacks any independent sources for its subject, and C) Would probably get deleted at AFD? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To provide a real-world example, Phil, I would have to sit down for hours researching. I'm sure that at least one of the 490 Pokemon could be argued past all three prongs, but given that even the starters can't find good independent sources, there's bound to be a zero-mention among the more minor ones. I'll provide a hypothetical instead: DVD commentary by a makeup designer on a science fiction movie documenting that the aliens were inspired by a someone in an old freak-show. Clearly real world info, the first prong is passed by pretty much any movie that was actually released, and someone will argue that that particular race of aliens is key to understanding that movie. My addition would block the article on an objective basis, without it, we are into an argument. Bear in mind my perspective ... I only nominate articles at AFD if they fail objective criteria, because I don't have the inclination to argue subjective ones. It's pretty rare that I even bring up a subjective criterion at AFD. As written, the second prong gives me nothing to go on at all. If you don't believe that the negative situation will ever occur, what's your objection to including it?—Kww(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suspect your DVD commentary example is a good one for me here. Yes, someone will argue that it's essential to understanding the movie. But on the other hand, I don't think that'll be terribly persuasive to people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as we have our "no consensus equals keep" tradition, it doesn't have to be extremely persuasive. People tend to fall in line behind objective criteria, and be swayed by pretty crappy arguments in their absence.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is Notability proposal for fictional subjects?

Hello, I clicked on a link in the "Centralized discussion" box at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 9. The link promised "Notability proposal for fictional subjects." However, I don't see a proposal. Can someone tell me where the proposal is, and change the link so that it brings other readers to the proposal? Thank you. Fg2 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the proposal. Please take the tiem to read through the article (policy), and the talk page. It's a lot, but it's worth it. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but that's a lot to ask. I don't see a proposal. It must be distributed among many places. It's not organized in a form that I can understand. Fg2 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
More specifically, it's at WP:FICT (while this is the talk page for it, that would be the project page). --MASEM 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. In that case, it would be much clearer if the link led to the proposal, as the link text states, rather than to the talk page, where readers search for a proposal that's not there. That would be very helpful. Fg2 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the link leads to the discussion, see. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the problem. The link says it leads to a proposal, but it leads to the discussion. Editors read through the discussion looking for a proposal, and don't find one. Please change the link to lead to the proposal. Fg2 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The proposal is that we enact this as a guideline. Do you want us to link to a poll? Protonk (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think what he means is there should be a clear spot, i.e. poll/vote etc., here on the talk page for those who get directed here. Maybe have a brief (very brief) intro paragraph telling the reader they are on the talk page of a proposed guideline, to read over it and come back and vote or comment on whether they think it should be accepted. If possible, be nice if it was at the top of the talk page.Hooper (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, nothing that elaborate. All I ask is to change the link so it points to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's as easy as that. Or, a clear opening section here on the discussion page (right below the templates) containing a header saying "Proposal" and something like "We propose to make Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) a guideline." would be fine instead, if the link points to it. It doesn't have to be any more than that. That way people who come here from centralized discussions can see where the proposal is, instead of getting lost in prongs. Fg2 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding importance within the fictional work

There's been some concerns about this second prong - particularly that any article can satisfy it. I'm skeptical of this - it seems to me that one is hard pressed to argue that Clefairy is essential to understanding Pokemon, or that Buzzy Beetles are essential to understanding Super Mario Brothers. But people seem very much afraid of the arguments that could be marshalled for topics such as these by fanboys, and particularly afraid that these arguments might be persuasive.

Can someone give an example? I'd like to see exactly what sorts of arguments that a minor element is essential to understanding a work of fiction people are afraid of, to see if there's a way to tighten the prong to deal with these bad arguments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • How about this? Reyk YO! 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, if one does hold that he's not essential to understanding the work (I honestly have no idea, since I'm not a Discworld fan), that one still seems to me to fail prong 3 rather abjectly. That said, I take your point that frequency of mention is too easy an argument for this prong. I'll tighten the language up a bit, including some explicit anti-frequency wording. That should ward off that approach. Any others? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There. I've tightened it, making it clear that the threshold is that the element must be central enough to be necessary to understanding the work as a whole. I also altered the "appears in every episode" example, as it was, I think, misleading. Does anyone still see spurious arguments to address this prong that would be problematic? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Another list. This one shows different level of characters within the same work being argued that they should be merged.じんない 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm on a strict "no comments on list proposals" rule, because otherwise the fragile consensus we've been building for months breaks. :) But the arguments I'm seeing for keeping unmerged there seem to me to be ones about the *worth* of the character in an artistic sense, as opposed to ones that satisfy the second prong. In fact, I think the second prong could probably persuasively be used to shoot those arguments down. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Examples? Try Yorick and Oddjob. The former still exists as a separate article while the latter has been redirected to a list. I consider this redirection to be disruptive since it is my strong opinion that Oddjob is essential to a full understanding of the work Goldfinger and I would expect to have little difficulty in supporting this. Yorick provides an interesting counter-example in that the character appears only in one scene, in the indirect form of his skull, and yet is well-recognised as an important element of the story. The Yorick article seems to be fine but Oddjob clearly needs rescuing. I shall attend to this in due course but leave matters as they are now in order to preserve understanding of the example. Oh, and another example which comes to mind is Figwit. That was taken to AFD but is now a good article nominee. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Not all consolidation is disruptive. For example, the Oddjob merge isn't disruptive (though I think it may have real-world potential, along with Jaws). When someone redirects an article on a major character to the fictional work, without trying to summarise that major character, it may be disruptive (depending on whether a description is already there or not). In actual fact, with Figwit, you've given an example of something that may pass prongs 1 and 3 (LOTR is a seminal work, and real world information has been incorporated into the article), but is a bit dodgy on prong 2. Sceptre (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Alas, poor Yorick… now needs watching for the pointy-minded. Oddjob certainly seem well covered in that list, so I see no issue with that redirect. Figwit is an excellant example of fanwank — an EILF, it would seem. Thanks.
    Jack Merridew 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance within a fictional work seems like something that's always going to be subjective to a degree, I don't think the example given in the current guideline ("the character is one of the main characters for the entire series") is particularly helpful as what defines a main character would seem to be the crux of the issue. Is Neville Longbottom a main character in the Harry Potter series? He appears in every book and plays an important role but there is obviously at least one "tier of importance" above him. Guest9999 (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • In answer to Phil Sandifer, there is no way to tighten the test for "Importance within the fictional work" to counter the argument that every element of fiction is important. Every element of fiction is important in someway, otherwise it would not have been created in the first place. The reasons why we need to get rid of the test for "Importance within the fictional work" are threefold:
  1. The idea that you can somehow objectively test for "Importance within the fictional work" is mistaken, because importance it is such a vague and subjective concept;
  2. Any arguement that a fictional element is important or unimportant is a self-referencing because there is no guide on fiction which makes such distinctions, and even if there was, not everyone would accept its authority;
  3. You can't very a test for relative importance, because comparing one fictional element with another (within or between works of fiction) is like comparing chalk and cheese. Sure, you can say that one Pokemon character is more important than another, but by how much? How can you verify this? Clearly the idea of relative importance makes no sense, as there is no such measure (like degrees) that can be verified.
The bottom line is that if you make a claim that something is important, then you have substantiate that claim with evidence, and no amount of hearsay, personal opinion or even persuasive argument can provide a substitute for evidence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If we were leaving it at "importance within the fictional work," I'd agree with you, but that's not all the prong says. I tend to think that essentialness to understanding the work as a whole is less vague. No? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would guess that Neville Longbottom would not get deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But why? Because he is "important within the fictional work"? The article says he is "a secondary character" (although even this claim is not substantiated), but whether a secondary character is important, slightly important or unimportant can't be verified. Sooner or later we will have to agree that "importance" can't be defined or quantified in an objective way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons he would be kept is that he's a fairly major character. Another issue here - and this is why I originally stressed that the three prong test was not three hurdles to clear, but something taken as a whole, is that doing exceptionally well on one prong can (and will) bootstrap another. We tolerate articles on characters that are less important to Harry Potter than we do for characters that are similarly important to Final Fantasy? Why? Because Harry Potter is of greater cultural significance. This is perhaps something that we need to look at restoring to the proposal - the note that the prongs are not just pass/fail - all three need to be addressed, but addressing one exceptionally can compensate for weakly addressing another to a degree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this article cites the author as saying he is a "significant" character, that is some evidence that the character passes the test for "importance within the fictional work". But if I had to rely on your opinion alone, then whether he is important or unimportant is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit

The guideline needs an extensive audit by multiple users, but perhaps it should wait until this guideline gets some stability? In other words, perhaps it's futile to do it at all? — Deckiller 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think auditing is futile at any point. We've been mercifully free of serious edit wars on the page for some time. Major changes to the scope or thrust of the proposal need to be discussed, but most anything else can be changed. If there is a problem, someone is liable to gently revert it. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

VGSCOPE is a guideline. I didn't know that. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It worked for many years and produced some of Wikipedia's best articles at the time. Perhaps consensus has shifted over the last year or two. — Deckiller 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in particular, Protonk, or that you just didn't know it (just looking for a purpose to the comment)? --Izno (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know, and I was operating in crafting this guideline with the idea that VGSCOPE was a wikiproject suggestion. It is good to know that their (very sensible) suggestions are accepted as guidelines. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting; I've just read the section;
and note that they've got:
  • Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.
  • Numerous short articles: One large article usually provides better organization and context for a topic. Don't create multiple small articles when one larger compilation will do. The ideal article is neither too large nor too small.
  • Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception.
Now the real-wiki may not actually be doing this, but this might well be considered a precedent that this proposed guideline should hew more closely to. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to work on articles

This is about as good of a compromise — as close to middle ground — as we're going to get. Everyone needs to should, in my opinion, cut their losses and get back to article writing.

As for my issues, most of them can be directed toward WAF (and many of them have already been merged into it). — Deckiller 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to ask one quick question before this is closed. I did read the article first. Would not "Fan Reaction" and "Reception" be considered acceptable sections on the articles? I'm seeing some of these sections being deleted completely, with edit comments like: "fan boy stuff like this doesn't belong", "cruft is not acceptable", etc. As long as references are provided to fan reaction, or critics reviews ... I thought material such as this was acceptable. I'm not trying to argue any points, simply get clarification. Thank you for your time. Ched (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (rm space) Ched (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! Reception sections are key to encyclopedia articles, and even more important than some of the fictional elements. Reception is what lets us know its place in the world; it's really what lets us know it's truly notable. Of course, the sources should be reliable and accurate; fan blogs or gameFAQs forums are unacceptable, but professional sites with a formal editing staff and a reputation for accuracy and quality will work. — Deckiller 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The opinions of particular professional reviewers do not seem especially important since they are individual personal opinions. The more people that are involved in providing a rating or judgement then the more weight we should give to it. Box office or viewing figures seem a good objective test. If a piece of fiction has sold a million (copies, downloads, tickets, whatever) then ipso facto it has been noticed by at least a million people and this seems adequate evidence of notability. This is well-recognised in the field of popular music (a million sales = a platinum record) and the principle is easy to extend. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh absolutely. Professional reviews are usually needed only for a few things: context (explaining elements of the gameplay, perhaps), examples of praise and criticism, and as part of an overall rating chart. That's mainly for video games, though; I know that music and film handle reception a little differently. — Deckiller 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sales/viewership/etc is fine for works of fiction but unfortunately when you come down to characters and other elements, the measurement isn't the same. In this case, we want reliable sources to explain why the characters/elements are notable, with those reliable sources being scholars that study such works or established reviewers that comment on such works. Of course, not every fiction element is going to have such aspects, but this is the best we'd like to have if it exists for a fiction element. --MASEM 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent relevant example is Teletubbies say Eh-oh!. This is a single which sold over a million copies and yet Collectonian took the article to AFD. She was, I gather, wanting the topic to be merged with the main article on Teletubbies. Episodes of major shows like Dad's Army and Scrubs seem similar. These are repeated endlessly and attract millions of viewers and yet some insist that articles about these obviously notable elements should be merged away. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The teletubbies song falls outside of FICT, as it's a song, not a element of fiction (even if sung by fictional elements) As for regardless prime time TV shows, of course they get watched by millions, that's the benefit of being shown in prime time. Showing something is notable is to explain why it is more important for people to know than comparably similar items. So a show getting 1 million people in viewership at prime time is nothing - on the other hand, 20 million is rather significant, so maybe there's something to be said about modifying WP:EPISODE to include these things compariable to WP:MUSIC's album sales. Of course, viewership isn't the only way something can be shown to be notable; a show with less than a million viewers at prime-time may be reviewed critically well ("best show no one saw"). --MASEM 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the outdent, but this is kind of a suprefluous tangent. I saw Deckiller's comment about WAF, here and I think elsewhere, and he's beaten me to the punch that WAF also warrants some more looking at. I think some of the content/sourcing disagreements on this talk page really might be better addressed under WAF's wider umbrella. That is all; carry on. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember the goal...

It is getting very frustrating to watch this version of FICT get torn apart in the same way that my earlier version was - the fact that some feel it's too soft while some feel it's too harsh on fiction topics while most everyone else feels its ok implies that it is a middle compromise and solution - moving it in either direction from this point to satisfy either side is making it less compelling. It is particularly worrisome given a recent ArbCom refusal to heard a E&C3 case with knowledge that this FICT was close to being put into active use.

It needs to be stressed that we are not trying to create anything new here, but instead mimicking the general behavior that presently happens at AFD and other places when fiction elements are brought forth. Yes, this means that articles are kept based on the strength of the "importance in the work" alone, but it also means articles are merged/deleted when they lack any significant real-world coverage. At the present time, we want to secure a FICT that follows consensus, not to create the consensus to be followed.

At some point, there needs to be a trust of good faith that if we affirm this version mimicks current processes, then those that both create fiction element articles as well as those that go about attempting to merge and delete them will use this guideline (which again, is very loosely prescriptive, not descriptive nor requirements) to continue to go about what they do but in a manner that goes with the spirit of this. If one or two don't, that's a problem to be solved by behavioral dispute resolution, but if there's a much larger scale of abuse either way (eg the definition in the second prong is twisted in all sorts of manners to assert that any character is "important", or if editors attempt to demand much stronger evidence of real-world details than the basics that the third prong is looking for) then we come back here and try to fix it. The problem right now is that it is impossible to tell which way this may be off (if it is) because the encyclopedia has been operating without a working FICT for a year and a half, using a bunch of other policies and guidelines to substitute; putting this compromise out and seeing how it works in practice is really the best solution to making sure this works.

Thus the only thing is to make sure that all editors reviewing this see this as a compromise position - not the positive they feel that FICT needs to be at, but one that is balanced between the inclusionists and deletionists position. This FICT is not going to make all fiction elements go away as it clearly allows for many many cases of where articles can be kept (and of course, this doesn't mean topics that fail this aren't covered); similarly this FICT is not intended to allow for rampant creation of fiction element articles as there are three prongs that must be satisfied. What should be going on now is trying to tweak any language that allows this guideline to stay true to the core portion that's been in discussion for two months but to try to help stem the concerns of those either side of central (eg the changing of the wording of the second prong to define better what "importance to the work" is.) What we should not be doing is drastically altering this guideline - if for some reason this fails to gain consensus we can certainly then change the core aspects, but lets wait to see what happens before derailing the work from the last two months on this.

Now, that said, the only major cavaet on all this is that we are only describing a test for notability but not what to do once satisfied or not, and that's where I see additional problems coming into play - all this is related to what I see are much larger issues of how inclusion, notability, article vs. topic, and a host of other policy/guideline issues have been convoluted from several years of buildup to get here. Without trying to address the problem of notability in general being both an inclusion guideline and a style guideline (as to describe what topics get articles), maybe we need to have addressed some changes at WP:WAF at the same time at least to describe what happens when a fiction element fails the three prongs. We did purposely choose to ignore the issues of non-notable lists, which I still believe is the right course, but we may end up in a case that what this version of FICT shows is only half the picture that editors expect to see when we describe notability for fiction, and we'll have to actually spend the time to work out the non-notable list issue in conjunction with this. I don't know if we need to do that, but that's the only failing I see right now, and one we chose to ignore purposely to get this out first. I certainly don't expect that if/when this is marked a guideline instead of proposed that we will never be coming back to it, but for the present, it is the best we can do without significant change to fiction-related policies/guidelines or some other general WP policies to start with. --MASEM 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I disagree that we are mimicking the general behavior that presently happens at AFD and other places. Rather, it is a matter of fact we are drafting the inclusion criteria for fictional topics. It has become clear to me (if not to you) that the test for "Importance within the fictional work" does not work, so whether it has been here for a month or more won't make it any better. If we agree on a compromise, I think you will agree it has to at least work in order to get through the process of peer review. If you can come up with another test that can be verified objectively, I am right behind you. But right now, I suggest we ditch the "importance" test, and split the "real-world test into "Substantial coverage" and "Real-world coverage" on the grounds that this is evidence of importance that can be objectively verified. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The only reason it's not working for you is that you are failing to take good faith into account that consensus (not one single editor) will be able to decide what the importance to the work is. For example, the Video Games project has already determined that things like weapons, common enemies, and the like are not generally important enough to even be covered as a list, much less as individual articles, save in very rare cases (BFG 9000, and even that's a weak case). I am reasonable confident and have good faith that other projects can work out their own standards. I believe the anime project has, and the D&D project has had to do the same. But again, this is happening at the level of consensus, not a single editor. --MASEM 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, BFG9000 gets through better under the current wording. The BFG9000 is, I think, clearly central to understanding Doom's cultural importance. :) (Similarly, exceptionally iconic enemies - Goombas and Koopas from Mario are the two that spring to mind - should probably get through.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That said, this may be a point to suggest consulting the relevant WikiProjects for subject-specific guidance on what a key element of the work of fiction is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In answer to Masem, when you say consensus will be able to decide what the importance to the work is, I think you really mean the personal opinions of more than one editor will be able to decide what is and is not important. Even if I was to agree with you that this guideline should mimic what goes on at AFD, the test for "Importance within the fictional work" will not work in this environment, for where you have editors with conflicting personal opinions, there is no way of resolving their disagreement, unless you can prove or disprove their views. This guideline should be providing a mechanism that helps resolve these disputes baed on opinion, not to make them more intractable. The only way to establish whether an element of fiction is important is to provide evidence of importance. Also, please also consider the advantage of having an evidence best test: evidence of importance can be used to write an encyclopedic article, but personal opinion is not allowed by WP:OR. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus and good faith. We cannot be descriptive with this guideline (much less any guideline or policy), and while you may want objective evidence for everything, there are going to be cases where common sense has to come into play as well. --MASEM 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Touche. The only reason I don't want to add that is because (frankly) the "multiple" portion of the GNG doesn't seem to apply in practice. If an independent source covered a fictional element, keeping it would be uncontroversial. Where the margin lies is right beyond that. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this whole "opinion" line of thought, as it seems to suggest that opinions just spring fully formed at random. Yes, there's no bright line test for importance to the fictional work. But that's not equivalent to the suggestion that there's no standards whatsoever. People are going to respond on this one within a relatively predictable range, and there are clear arguments to be marshalled for a claim of importance. Which is why, above, I wanted to focus on what sorts of arguments people saw as problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mimicking an aspect of society doesn't validate it. Millions acquiesced to segregation, knowing it was wrong but going along with it anyways, to preserve older feelings of superiority. Doesn't make it right. The independent citations requirement cannot be removed. It WILL open the door for cruft and crap. If you think there aren't editors here chafing at the bit to race out and create 50,000 moronic articles on things like Flintstone Technology, Jetson Technology, Pokemon breeding habits, and The crumbs that fall from Chowder's mouth, you are wrong. We need a bright line against that to start from, and having an independent source, even one, to establish notability, is that bright line start. It'd be even better if we could call for two, to prevent sarcastic jokes and off the cuff one-liners from a writer from being interpreted as real notability, but I know that makes too much sense to ever work here. One Indepent Source MUST be found. ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Given that we're trying to mimick the status quo that's happening right now - and that these articles either aren't being created in massive droves, or if they are created, they are deleted at AFD - this version of FICT is sufficient to prevent them. (And yes, Protonk is right that the comparison to segregation is inappropriate in this). --MASEM 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Phil Sandifer that opinions don't just spring fully formed at random. What I am asking is that the source of those opinions needs to be provided in their support. I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence that an element of fiction is important. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh. OK, that's fine. I can take care of that problem. Have a look at the current wording - I think it makes clear that even though this is not a bright line distinction, it is also not "I like it." Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see alot of conflict in the current version:
Importance within the fictional work: The subject should be an episode or non-cameo character that is important or central to understanding the work as a whole. Assessing the importance involves researching commentary from reliable sources on the topic. The work itself can also indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons. Focus on indisputable facts (e.g. "the character is one of the main characters for the entire series") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion. Mere frequency of appearance or mention in the work does not satisfy this prong - it is necessary to show that understanding of the subject is essential to understanding the work, not just on the level of plot detail, but in terms of its artistic, cultural, or historical significance. In all cases, a clear explanation with evidence of what the element contributes to an overall understanding of the work is necessary - bald assertions of importance are insufficient.
Firstly the idea that a topic on fiction has to be about an episode or non-cameo character is too limiting - what happend to unimportant artifacts like Excalibur?Secondly, the statment that "Assessing the importance involves researching commentary from reliable secondary source on the topic is a bit pointless: why research if you can cite the sources? This is a bit like saying, "I know there is evidence that this topic is important, but I am not going to show it to you" (i.e. I am going to sulk). Thirdly, the statement "In all cases, a clear explanation with evidence of what the element contributes to an overall understanding of the work is necessary" still means that a bald assertions of importance is acceptable, so long as it drawn out and verbose (i.e. my opinion counts because it can only be expressed in big words). This test still does not work because it is based on subjective opinion (that can't be proven) about a concept ("importance") that is too vague to define. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the word "importance" as much as I could work it out, as I think it's serving as a bit of a red herring. I've also removed the "research" bit. I'm sympathetic to you on episode or non-cameo character. Randomran just reverted a change to this, though, so I'd want to hear from him before re-fixing this. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about the "drawn out and verbose" critique. It seems there like you want a bright line test - I don't think one is appropriate. But is the current version at least an improvement,i n your eyes? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
To say that Excalibur is "not important" is to admit ignorance of its impact, and therefore forfeit any right to make rules on whether or not it should be allowed. Hooper (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying "episdoes and non-cameo characters" is a way of guaranteeing that the "importance" prong is not abused with mere assertions of WP:ILIKEIT. It acts as a filter, so we're not including everything that you see at someone's developer blog -- which might include virtually anything. Cameo characters, joke characters, inanimate objects, and other nouns should probably still meet WP:N. They're the exception and not the rule. I feel pretty strongly about this, as if we remove it Gavin's worst concerns become true: the second prong becomes a meaningless test that everything passes. Randomran (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi; I have a brief comment here. Saying "episodes and non-cameo characters" seems, to me, to make the proposal sound like it mainly deals with television and movies... maybe "episodes and recurring aspects in the work (such as non-cameo characters)". That way, it would also apply to locations, items, etc. within the work.
Also, I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (too many archives to look through!), but if an article, like Kender, passes prongs 1 and 3 without a problem, but completely fails prong 2, would that mean that it fails the test? If it's a relatively minor aspect of a major game/movie/book/etc., and consists mainly of real-world coverage, would it still pass the test because of prongs 1 and 3? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always been a proponent of using the term "fictional element", as it encompasses characters, episodes, and the like. As for your Kender example. To me, prong 3 is the strongest prong. If you satisfy that prong (I mean it as the real world coverage is abundant, and not some minute paragraph of information), but the element itself is not that major to the fiction then I would say you have to ask one question: "Can this exist on the parent page without making that page too large, or causing this subject to lose the strength it has on its own?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If the test for "importance within a fictional work" was a test that every element of fiction could pass, the new version does not seem to be a test at all:
Role within the fictional work: The subject should be an episode, non-cameo character, or other fictional element that is central to understanding the work as a whole. This is best judged via commentary from reliable sources on the topic. The work itself can also be used for this to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons. Focus on indisputable facts (e.g. "the character is one of the main characters for the entire series") to prove the importance of the subject, rather than personal opinion. Mere frequency of appearance or mention in the work does not satisfy this prong – it is necessary to show that understanding of the subject is essential to understanding the work, not just on the level of plot detail, but in terms of its artistic, cultural, or historical significance. In all cases, a clear explanation with evidence of what the element contributes to an overall understanding of the work is necessary – bald assertions of significance are insufficient.
My reading of this version is that a fictional element qualifies for a standalone article if...it is a episode, non-cameo character, or other fictional element! --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
..."that is necessary to understanding the work as a whole [...] not just on the level of plot detail, but in terms of artistic, cultural, or historical significance [...] bald assertions of significance are insufficient". I don't see how outside your cynical, asinine reading of this everything is allowed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly. The previous version used the test for "importance within a fictional work" as one of the inclusion criteria for a stand article, but this was too vague and subjective criteria to be defined. Now the test is whether an element of fiction is "an episode, non-cameo character, or other fictional element that is central to understanding the work as a whole". No matter how you qualify this criteria, every element of fiction meets this requirement. I can't think of a single fictional topic that could fail this test, becuase every element of fiction is central to understanding the work as a whole, othewise it would not have been created in the first place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Gavin, I think you are confusing "understanding the work as a whole" and "understanding everything about the work". The first, which is what the guideline uses, is about being able to understand the basic idea of the work. Would an article on James T. Kirk cause me to not understand Star Trek as a whole if it were to be removed (speaking of course that it had the real world coverage to satisfy prong 3)...I would say most definitely, because you cannot understand the most basic of ideas behind Star Trek without talking about James Kirk. Now, would it inhibit your understanding of House if we didn't have an article on the patient from episode 56? Not in the least. So, I disagree with your assertion that every fictional element could pass this test. Being important to understanding the work as a whole does not equal being important to understanding every minute aspect of the work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You make a valid point, but this issue goes back to my earlier arguement that you can't measure importance, or make comparison between characters when it comes to their relative importance (now relabled "important or central to understanding the work") without making a highly subjective judgement.
    Taking your hypothetical example of the patient from episode 56 from the series House (TV series), in my view the patients are actually "quite important" to each episode, because the lead characters are focused on diagnosing their medical conditions. When I argue that they are "quite important" (either individually or as a group), I think I have provided you with reasonable justification (from my point of view at least) for a standalone article if we ignore the the fact (for a moment) there is no content for such article.
    Note that it is fairly easy to argue that an element of fiction is "important or central to understanding the work", because without that element, the whole work may or may not fail to work as a narrative, and pretending that characters can or can't be removed or substituted without loss of understanding is a matter of personal speculation.
    The problem with making relative distinctions between characters such as primary, secondary or some other category in terms of importance is that this is even more subjective. What unimportant to you may be very important to the fans, for reasons such a particularly attractive actor might play the patient from episode 56. For instance, if you have a look at the discussion Why Is Cameron More Important?, you can see that this character has been the subject of several redirects when the article was totally unsourced. Only by providing evidence of importance can you resolve such disputes, and this is what this guideline should be saying, rather than making opinion the benchmark for importance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Responding to User:Bignole. Thanks; that's pretty much what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.
  • Respond to others regarding the "episode, non-cameo" thing. When I posted, it didn't have the fictional elements listed there; it was added since then. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Gavin, what you are basically describing - demanding importance be shown by sources - is applying content guidelines to the editing process, and that is not a proper use of the guidelines. For example, when writing any article on WP using any types of sources but lets say they are all secondary, I have to engage in WP:OR to write it, synthesizing my own words and language (since we can't copy directly) to represent what the secondary sources say. Is that a violation of OR? No - it's understood that editors have to have to employ a non-interpretive translation of the sources to write an article, such as long as the end content doesn't employ OR, that's fine. Decisions on whether a fiction element topic is "important" fall into the same class of edits - at the end of a day we need an article that isn't indiscriminate and passes WP:V, so we want sources to help support the V part, but you are never going to find a source that says "this is not an indiscriminate topic", instead we use editors' judgment to make that assertion, with simple rules of thumb to help. With the third prong this makes sure we have articles that are indiscriminate and have appropriate sourcing. In both cases, this is not done in a vacuum, this is a wiki so all such edits can be checked and changed if determined to be misused. Basically, the decision of "importance" is something that is done behind the WP curtain before it is presented to the reader and thus doesn't have to meet the general content guidelines that apply to writing text in mainspace. --MASEM 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The test for importance is not dissimilar to notability in that it can be proven by citing evidence, and what I am proposing is that substantial real-world coverage is the evidence of importance. If importance were just a matter of opinion then it really has no bearing on whether a topic is suitable for inclusion or not, since someone will hold an opinion as to whether this or that character should have its own article. As you point out, these opinions can't be included in the article itself, so we need substantial real-world coverage anyway if not to provide evidence of importance but to write the article itself. In any case, editors' judgment cannot be the basis for inclusion criteria, otherwise there would be no constraint on the creation of content forks which repeat what has been said else where. We have to have a substantive test that helps identify what is and is not a fork, and opinion can't be the basis for that test. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But opinion is used throughout guidelines to make choices that aren't obviously bright lines. WP:N requires "significant coverage in secondary sources". "Secondary sources" is certainly a bright line, but what is "significant"? We can point to cases that certainly are, and cases that certainly aren't, but there's a lot of ground between the two, and thus opinion is used to determine when the significance threshold has been passed. Same with potential synthesis of facts per WP:OR - sometimes the synthesize is plainly obvious and thus allowed, while other times it's OR/POV to include it, and opinion (at the wiki scale) is used to decide when the line is crossed. Same with this version of FICT - some elements are clearly important, some clearly aren't, but there's a wide range that may fall between that, and thus opinion is used to make the final decision. Guidelines are meant to be prescription, and having clauses that allow for editors' opinions to make the final choice are perfectly appropriate - as long as the resulting article still meets the goals of WP. --MASEM 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Opinion is used to evaluate the evidence, sure, but as this test stands, no evidence is required to support the claim that an element of fiction is "important" (or "is central to understanding the work as a whole", as it has been relabeled by Phil Sandifer). Your statement that "some elements are clearly important, some clearly aren't, but there's a wide range that may fall between that, and thus opinion is used to make the final decision" does not provide any useful guidance at all, as every person will have a different opinion on this matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is evidence - the work of fiction itself in addition to any sources that might (but not always) be there for the element. And it's ok if every person has a different opinion on whether a topic is important - its consensus that drives the final decision. If a guideline does not have a point where it calls out for editors' opinion, then it is doing something wrong because guidelines are not descriptive. --MASEM 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Instead of advocating for removing the prong, perhaps you might gain more traction and support if you found a way to fix the prong? Don't tell me we can't say straight up what *isn't* important, even if it's hard to come up with a test for what *is* important. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the point - it can't be fixed because you can't test an element of fiction to see if it is central to understanding the work, as this is too vague and too subjective a concept to define it objectively. The only way forward in my view is as follows:
An element of ficiton is presumed to be central to understanding of the work and therefore important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article if if the fictional work from which they are derived cite evidence of notability (i.e. the test for "importance of the work"), the element is the subject of significant coverage (the "Significance" test) and real-world information must exist on the subject (the "Real-world" test).
This is a simple rehash of my earlier proposal, Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction. I think this is a better way forward than having a test for whether an element of fiction is central to understanding the work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can at least set a base-line minimum.じんない 09:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can. Remember the concept of what is "central to understanding of the work" is purely subjective. There is not a baseline that will work in every case. My view is that this prong will be starting point for many disputes based on differences of opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't "purely" subjective. It may be "largely" subjective, but there are clearly some things that aren't "central" to understanding the work.じんない 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

reality check: how to compromise

This guideline can be distilled down to a simple trade.

  • Inclusionists concede that real-world coverage is necessary for an article.
  • Deletionists concede that real-world coverage need not come from independent journalism or scholarship, but from developer commentary. (Official blogs and diaries, DVD special features and commentary, documentaries approved by the marketing department.)

Both sides make a concession to the other side, in order to meet in the middle.

So what if you don't like that compromise?

Then you're going to have to come up with a different compromise. And it's a two way street. You can't just say "I believe this should mimic WP:N as closely as possible". You can't just say "I think we should write fictional articles from primary sources". You have to give away something to people you disagree with. You cannot say "we should do X", unless you concede "but I'll let you do Y".

And what if you don't want to make any concessions at all?

Then we're going to keep on seeing articles deleted/redirected one-by-one, on the basis that they lack reliable third-party sources. (Take a moment and imagine all the articles that have been deleted in the past year if that helps.) And we're going to see other articles kept whenever a group of hardcore fans reach the critical mass to reach no consensus. (I'm sure you can remember a few of those too.) And every single article will continue to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Those are your choices. Sign onto this guideline. If not, find something else you can give to the other side. If not, then I guess you're allowed to insist that you have the "one true vision" for the ideal encyclopedia, but it will only allow the scattershot of deletion to continue. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. There's no need to compromise. WP:N should be policy. If it is, then the need for this entire farce is obviated. As for the 'TRUTH' invocation above, I like how your call for compromise is 'Do it MY way or you're wrong'. It's simple. Without Independent Sources, there's no proof of notability. Of course the developers' feel it's notable, they're biased; they invested time, money, life into their work. Their Official Blog takes two hours to set up, and does NOTHING to make them more notable. If anyone can argue convincingly why an author's own blog defines notability, i'm open to hearing it, but I don't think there's such an argument. If a film has made it to DVD< odds are good there's some independent sources; in the rare cases there are none, there's a reason for it. It wasn't notable enough to take notice of. ThuranX (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
....You guys could just stop arguing over something that most the community will just ignore anyway....just a thought. Hooper (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying you have to compromise. But if you don't, you're going to see a lot of articles kept that don't meet WP:N. Randomran (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, as long as said developer commentary is sufficiently thorough enough (e.g., we're looking for something on the thoroughness of this); that is, we can do at least 65-35 on IU-OOU material. Sceptre (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not thorough, it's trivia! that's nonsense, and has NO bearing on the notability of the series, nor episode. It's one of those technical glitch things that happens on any series. So what? You can't use that to establish the notability of the episode at all. it's really 'notable' that due to a production mistake/misunderstanding, the drum based background music was switched for one DVD release? No. It's not. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I said "thoroughness", not the topic. McCreary does write good, adequately long essays about the series' music. And if all you're here to do is kick in your heels and refuse to compromise, don't post here. That goes for the inclusionists too. Sceptre (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
  • I fail to see how reducing from "direct and detailed examination in multiple independent, third-party sources" to "some kind of mention in at least one independent third-party source" isn't a compromise.
  • I don't care at all about real-world impact coverage. Once you've managed to prove notability, I think people should go ahead and describe the thing the best they can. If someone can adequately source the internal operation of a BFG9000], that's fine to add, once it has been determined that there should be an article about the BFG9000 at all.
—Kww(talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm. I'm really, really not liking that image. Back in the 80s, there were a bunch of unlicensed hint guides for Nintendo games - books full of tricks and tips. A lot of enemies and the like are going to get some mention in those books. If that's the threshold, then we open the door to a flood of in-universe crap. I'm much more comfortable with the syllogistic reasoning that if the fictional work is extremely notable, the element is solidly important to the fictional work, and some real-world perspective is available (such that it's possible to write an article that at least rudimentally meets our policies) the article probably isn't going to be enough of a train wreck to delete.
  • I mean, when you get down to it, our deletion policy amounts to "we delete shitty articles with no hope of improvement." Any inclusion guideline amounts to an attempt to quantify that sentiment. I think the three prong test, as it stands, does a better job than this independence idea. I mean, I'm open to having my mind changed here - what is an article that passes the three prong test but should be deleted because of a lack of available independent sources? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see you're trying to compromise in good faith. But you'll have to ask inclusionists why they don't think coverage in one reliable third party source is fair. But to state the obvious, it's probably still too close to WP:N for their liking. Randomran (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if we can agree that real-world coverage need not come from independent journalism or scholarship, then we can bring the inclusionist in on a compromise. I am in favour, because the requirement for significant real-world coverage represents a big improvement in this guideline, as it encourages better quality articles. As for the importance test, I can take it or leave it as it is ineffectual in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And I oppose this, because it allows self-published materials to become an assertion of notability. I've never argued against creator content being used to flesh out the development/production sections of articles ,but it's not sufficient for establishing notability. It can't be, by the definitions and our rules about no self-promotional materials. ThuranX (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
While you may believe this, the WP:N RFC resulted in the support of subnotability guidelines allowing to define what types of sources can be used for notability (per B.2). Thus, to allow the use of non-independent sources seems to be in line with this --MASEM 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I see someone said above that "WP:N should be the policy" but WP:N is not policy in the first place, but a general guideline with provision for exceptions. fiction s a whole general class of things is an exception. DGG (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, that's a false choice. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests a survey. I suggested a survey to Masem in June — six months ago — and I wrote one up in October. I also asked Phil Sandifer about it in October. Phil Sandifer said it was too long and too demanding. 39 minutes later, Phil Sandifer created User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal. Then on November 21, Phil Sandifer unprotected[8][9] WP:FICT and moved his proposal over — and Phil's version of FICT is the one we are currently discussing. --Pixelface (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I started a thread here about the survey on October 14, 2008. David Fuchs, Masem, Collectonian, and Phil Sandifer commented. I'll start a new thread about it below. --Pixelface (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And so we're back to square one. When you say "WP:N applies unconditionally to fiction", you achieve the same result as saying "fiction is completely exempt from WP:N". Okay, you get the comfort of knowing you're right, but that won't stop every AFD from becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND of WP:N versus a few pockets of fans. Sometimes entire categories will be deleted, and sometimes a slew of articles will be stonewalled by a group of fans. I hope people are comfortable with that kind of chaotic outcome, because that's what happens when you insist on a hard line without any concessions. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not sure that a hard line view that is openly unwilling to compromise is one that is meaningfully working towards consensus. When one is holding one of the most extreme views in a discussion and is unwilling to budge from it, there are limits to how much one's voice counts in decision making. Wikipedia's decision making process is not hostage to extreme partisans. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
there remains room to compromise in one of two manners:
  1. admit that the applicability of WP:N to fictional elements is undetermined and that each case is determined ad hoc
  2. accept that notability in the case of fictional elements depends upon importance of the element and of the fiction, and that less important ones should be merged. Such was the original intent of the 2-prong test, until it became diverted by attempts to deal with the WP:N GNG.
If it isn't clear, I strongly support the second. We can then come down to finding the way to decide on what degrees of notability merits an article. (Actually, I think it's the concept of "article" that makes the compromise difficult. We should really be saying that the amount of content depends upon the importance of the element and of the fiction and the available material; we could more easily agree on how to divide it up if we accepted that the amount of content should be moderately extensive, but not to the extent of a fan wiki. if we're going to have very sparse content, it doesn't matter whether we give the paragraphs the dignity of separate articles. )DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to wander a bit into philosophical land here, because I strongly disagree with your last sentence. I really dislike extremely short articles. To go to a non-fiction example, I really dislike short articles about five different singles from an album, and then having a sixth article about the album. All five single articles wind up with discussion of the artist and discussion of the album, usually a reference to two or more of the other singles, and the album article winds up repeating half of it. To make sense of everything and fact check it, I usually wind up with seven or eight tabs open, and then trying to figure out why three of the articles say one thing, two say something different, and two others have something completely different. If people would focus on presenting an album with six singles as a logical cohesive chunk, all that information would have better context, be easier to understand, easier to fact check, and not scattered all over the hell. Fiction's the same way: is a BFG9000 article easier to understand inside the context of the game, or not? 99% of the time, these articles would be better merged, and denying them an article isn't denying them importance, it's recognising that information about them only makes sense in a very specific context.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Kww, you misread me. I am saying that the main point is not to have very sparse content on important topics, not that its better to have it in separate articles. I even agree with you that if we must have almost content-free coverage of something, because there's nothing much to say, it is better not to do it in separate articles. The only reason for keeping an almost empty article on a fictional topic separate is because it can and should be promptly expanded. I'm saying I do not want to fight for separate article particularly, that's not the point. The point is to have full content. I am willing to accept almost ny degree of combining article.s I am not will to accept cutting content. I want a full description of each major characters role in a story, but where it's located doesn't worry me much. What does worry me, is when people cut the content back to nothing under NOT PLOT. Ads I see it, NOT PLOT only means that the coverage of the topic of a fictional work as a whole should be more than plot. DGG (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ding — I agree with a lot of what you're saying here; see my other comments hereabouts. Inclusion criteria is about whether an article warrants a stand-alone article, not about the appropriateness of having any coverage at all. We may still differ on the depth of coverage that is appropriate for an element and what's 'important', but my core concern is the proliferation of poor quality articles. The fanboys need to be pushed towards fewer articles where they will of necessity have to refine their work and build upwards, not outwards. The core issues with opening the floodgates to billions and billions of non-notable articles are a) widespread mediocrity and b) scalability issues that adversely affect the project as a whole. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Once again, I have to bring you back down to reality. The most important part of a compromise isn't saying "this is what I want", but saying "this is what I'm willing to give up." If you're not willing to give up anything -- as an inclusionist -- there will be no compromise. And WP:N will continue to be the only guideline we have, and we will continue to see articles deleted one by one, even if a few fans can occasionally "save" an article that doesn't meet WP:N for a few months or so. Randomran (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a false choice. Notability does have to come from significant coverage in reliable independent sources; someone else taking note. If you remove that you open the floodgates to millions of articles about every trivial element of every pop culture franchise. You'll be granting gravitas to press releases, DVD commentaries, bonus discs, official fansites and author sites. The big players will crank out exactly what is needed to meet this proposed guideline. Wikipedia is big; coverage here is valuable to the big franchises (and to the wanna-be-big). Anyone think the marketing directors won't tailor their campaigns to cover the low bar being proposed here?
re some of the above; larger articles are better articles (32kb was quaint; ignore it). That notability being required for a stand-along article results in pressure to cover elements in a higher level article is a good thing — it results in better articles.
If the fans flood an Afd with a great many 'keeps' that amount to ILIKEIT, they should be discounted; If you'd like us to give something up, I'll offer this:
  • Wikia.com — Find and collaborate with people who love what you love.
They can have it all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I find the notion to be hilarious, if marketing directors do crank out developer commentary, merchandise, and all that other fun stuff, it's indicative enough of real world impact and its bound to get note. And no, this doesn't open the floodgates. Stuff that is still too trivial for coverage gets shot down by prong two because at a certain point, there's not a whole lot you can write about something. The Fable 2 guidebook had an entire section devoted to developer commentary on how they designed dungeon textures, trees, and stuff like that. Tree (Fable 2) is not going to get much traction to be kept at AfD no matter how much developer commentary in the world exists for it. I can live with stuff in the gray zone past this being kept so long as we have an objective criteria here to use. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If they're doing their job well enough and their, ah, product is not an utter dud, and they do get taken note of (by someone else; someone independent), then they pass WP:N; but if that doesn't happen, they've still put their blather out and that alone is worthless re notability.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the quality of their blather. If I can write a decent paragraph on conception/design/influences, I can live with it. Slaving ourselves to NOTE isn't really the best path here. IMO, take the compromise and go with it. We're ultimately better off with the guideline than reverting back to the NOTE/NOT#PLOT/WEIGHT wars that haven't resulted in anything constructive. And why the link to a nonexistent page? — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The marketing types write high quality blather. A marketing guy I knew once offered a joke;
How do you know when a marketing guy is lying? His lips are moving.
(could easily be a recycled lawyer joke)
I am quite aware that reasonable people on the inclusionist side will make reasonable edits per this and other guidelines; they'd make reasonable edits absent these, too ( i.e. they're reasonable ;)
However, anyone can edit and that includes the unreasonable; they will run with a loose guideline.
I have no problem with such sources being used by editors such as yourself using said blather to write your decent paragraph. Nothing about this proposed guideline helps you do this or impedes your doing it; that's just editing.
I do have an issue with the carefully crafted words of sources that are not independent being used to determine 'notability'. Fundamentally 'notability' means that someone took note; this means someone else.
link was just a joke.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability of the work on the whole still has to be demonstrated by independent sources; once this is done, what is the issue with sourcing details from non-independent ones? We should be aiming to give readers as complete an understanding of the notable works we discuss as is possible by summarising the information from available sources. We do this by writing a top level article on the work, and then breaking out sub-articles using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in ever increasing detail. This allows casual readers to view articles at the level of detail they are interested in without having to go into unnecessary detail, but provides more details for those who are more interested in the topic. This seems to me to be an ideal compromise in terms of how our articles should be structured -- what, exactly, is wrong with this vision? JulesH (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE also advises that articles should not be spun out unless the new article can demonstrate notability on its own merits. The fact is that creating an article is an implicit assertion that the subject is covered as an independent in is own right, not merely as part of the coverage of a greater whole. In the case of articles spun out from their parent because of length this is usually not a problem; if there's so much to be written about a subtopic that it can no longer fit in the parent article then there's almost always some real-world information to justify treating it as an encyclopedic subject in its own right- or it's a vast mound of fancrap that should never have been allowed to reach those proportions and should be trimmed severely. Reyk YO! 10:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Except that isn't followed at all. You won't believe many times I've nominated non-notable/POV forks for AFD and had an influx of "keep itz sourced eleventy one". Even though the article title isn't the subject of sources; it's the parent article... Sceptre (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Question: why does the subject of the article need to be the main subject of the source? WP:N does not require this; it only requires that the sources exist, are reliable and address the topic in non-trivial depth. I've seen this argument in AFDs, and I really do wonder why it's even relevant. JulesH (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think what Sceptre means is that sources which are only relevant to the parent article are being used to "source" the fork. I've seen the same thing myself, particularly in AfDs for fiction. Reyk YO! 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
10,000,000,000 non-notable articles. Jack Merridew 10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring your hyperbolic number, yes. Articles that do not meet WP:N, but clearly have the support of the community given that, despite as systematized an effort to remove them as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, they're still there. You can point to WP:N all you want, but policy literalism isn't how we roll here, and the material evidence that the community *does not apply WP:N* as written to fiction articles, and that applying WP:N as written *does not have the consensus of the community* stops that argument dead.
I mean, this no retreat, no surrender approach is nonsense. You place yourself outside of the debate. When you openly say that you're unwilling to moderate your position or consider the evidence of what the community actually does in practice, you're out of the debate. You can howl all you want, but you're just the nutter howling on the sidelines, not someone whose view can meaningfully be considered when talking about consensus.Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not my fault that legions of fans are disrupting reasonable AfDs. Yes, they want their trivial articles. When they show up at a discussion with little more than ILIKEIT, they are the ones who should be viewed as on the sidelines.
It is not too much to ask that some independent source have commented on something in a non-trivial way to justify an article. Really, it's a big internet, there are a lot of books and reputable publications in this world. And you want to allow articles on subjects that no one but the folks who wrote it have much to say about? Isn't that it?
Really, take it to Wikia. That's what it's for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you assume that anyone who disagrees with your desired result is part of a disruptive legion, you're not really going to come to conclusions that are useful for the purposes of discussion and consensus. I carefully avoided looking at the "legions of fans" circumstances - in fact, when I wrote the first draft of this, I expressly called for being careful in areas where there are a lot of devoted fans, as they can skew results. But the fact of the matter is, reasonable, non-fanboy people are persuaded by arguments other than WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Phil, your comments about Jack are not civil. Just because an editor has a different opinion from your own, it does not invalidate them or their viewpoint. Lets just take each arguement in good faith, consider it strengths and weakness, rather than labeling them right or wrong. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Calling a number of editors "disruptive" merely for expressing their viewpoint at an AFD isn't civil either. I think that's the only point Phil Sandifer was trying to make. And let me add, insisting by WP:N might make Jack feel good, but it's not going to stop the "fans" who are "disrupting" AFDs and ultimately keeping the article. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Given how thoroughly we disagree, I suspect you know I don't consider disagreement with me to be invalidating. My objection is that, unlike you, Jack seems unwilling to budge his position, and, in fact, is dismissing those who support keeping articles he wants deleted as a "legion of fans" who should be ignored. I do think that if you're a hard partisan who isn't going to budge your viewpoint or compromise, Wikipedia policy making is not the place for you. Because it depends on middle ground, consensus, and compromise. And I think, as a practical matter, there are limits to how much such approaches can factor into decision making, because it's important not to let policy be held hostage by the extremes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't lump anyone who disagrees with me into one 'legion'. I am well aware that there are reasonable people about with whom I disagree. Look, I've seen you about on this site for four years; you're a reasonable person, but I don't agree with you about this. I see serious issues of scalability with the WMF projects. 2,700,000 articles is already a problem. I've also seen this problem on other language 'pedias (and Indonesian television is just awful).
Too many of the pop-culture areas are flooded with low-quality articles. Sure, that content can be improved, but the TVs in this world are cranking out 'content' 24/7. The issue of inclusion criteria is about granularity; coverage of all this content will be better if more of that coverage is in fewer, but higher quality, articles. If you open the floodgates to non-notable subjects you will just allow the creation a great number of of low quality articles. All that can be said for a great number of fictional elements amounts to plot summary; that's easy rote typing that requires little analysis and composition, and the legions have their heads in-universe. Limiting the flat growth of a topic area will result in better coverage because they will have to build up in fewer (better) articles, not out in an infinite number of poor articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We have to live with the fact that content is being generated at a rate faster than can be cataloged by anyone but fanboys. Wikipedia exists partially because it recognized that. Encyclopedias that relied on people disinterested in the subject matter (or paid) didn't have near the breadth of coverage. Also, LOLBULLETS. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be the lunatics running the asylum ;) That road leads to the project fragmenting into private fiefdoms. If groups want to secede from the project fine (great, in some cases) → Wikia.com.
I have no real issue with many of these trivial elements getting some coverage; "Bullet bill" is a list entry, which seems about right; he had an article, once, which was bad. Breadth of coverage is not the same as an infinite number of stand-alone articles. Too many in the Fiction-Fan Legion will only write shitty little in-universe articles. They need to be hauled, kicking and screaming, no doubt, in the direction of writing more appropriate coverage; specifically: fewer, but higher quality, articles.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(Oudent) Bullet edit war. :) Protonk (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullet bill. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My bitch about bullets amounts to this; they muddy the indenting and the two styles should not be mixed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I know. I just wanted to razz you. I have no problem with you changing my default formatting (either all bullets or all colons) as need be to keep it formatted. :) Protonk (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Second prong

Looking at old versions of the proposal, I found some language that might be suitable for fixing the second prong. In an earlier version, we discussed tendencies with regards to episodes, characters, and other stuff, noting in the other stuff section that we were more skeptical of it, while remaining fairly permissive on episodes and major characters.

What if - as a variation on Randomran's whitelist idea, we noted in the second prong that episodes of and major characters of works of fiction are allowed, assuming that prongs #1 and #3 are met, and that other stuff must show exceptional importance to the fictional work as a whole?

Thus we leave importance debates only for the stuff that is already going to be marginal and hotly debated, and we note that the burden of evidence is on showing importance.

Language can be honed as needed - I just wanted quick comments before I try to write it up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm supportive of this idea. But to address concerns that we're going from "too lax" to "too strict", we'd want to make sure that this doesn't exclude inanimate objects or cameo characters that have coverage in reliable secondary sources. The "other stuff" wouldn't be blacklisted, but um... "grey listed", and they could pass the rest if they have have independent coverage. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What if we explicitly mention the option of passing WP:N in that sentence. Something like "Other fictional elements that do not pass WP:N on their own must show exceptional importance to the fictional work as a whole." Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think if we are going to do an example of a whitelist, we need one for blacklist as there has been more concern about "anything" being able to be justified as "central to the plot". Minor characters are usually good examples, even if they pass the other two prongs.じんない 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with a white and/or black list, so long as we have an exception whenever something meets WP:N. The importance prong could say "for an element to be important, it should be an X, a Y, or covered in reliable third-party sources". That helps us avoid being too absolute. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think we need to leave a swath of stuff up for debate, even if it's debate without clear bright lines. We're dealing with an awful lot of articles here, and while we can set up "has some real-world content" as a standard we want for all articles, I'm really uncomfortable with setting up any sort of blacklist. There's too many articles for me to feel confident that we're not screwing over a set of 100 or 200 articles that should exist. If the price of that carefulness is that we have to deal with debates over whether or not the Starship Whatever is central to understanding Amazing Space Adventures, that's a price I think we have to be willing to pay. It's enough to, in those cases, say that some really persuasive evidence of importance is going to have to be presented.
I'm more concerned with "main character" and "episode" actually, as a whitelist. Would episodes be taken to mean issues for a comic book? Would "main character" be used to delete anyone who didn't appear in the credits of a television series? White and black lists set up hard and fast rules, and I've never seen a hard and fast rule in a deletion debate that wasn't abused.
I mean, I still do not see this as a real issue. Yes, fanboys are going to declare that everything is important and thus everything should be kept. But the most pathological of fanboys are also going to ignore this guideline and just vote keep. It's better to have the means to deal with limit cases sensibly than to waste time trying to legislate nutcases into sanity.
I mean, I'm willing to grant that episodes and main characters can be white listed. But I want to make sure that it's possible to argue the case for other things. And if we use the word "episodes," I want to make sure there's a footnote so that individual media WikiProjects can define what an episode means for them (so that, for instance, comics can set the episode threshold at "plot arc" instead of "issue.") Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fair point on the black list. There are always exceptional cameo characters or objects that might be quite notable. So let's avoid the black list, and go with a white list. On that list, we should have major characters (non-cameo might be a lower threshold, if you prefer), television episodes, and comic book storylines. The white list should also include a general provision for "anything covered in reliable third-party sources", which will let anything be notable in theory. Randomran (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't think this'll pass with just a white list as more of the complaints have been about how easy it would be to pass rather than how easy it would be to delete. However, I do think we should have a whitelist. The whitelist should especially not have a broad sweeping statement of "anything covered in reliable third-party sources" if we refuse to do a blacklist as it will just give fuel to fire of inclusionists.じんない 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think what we want is somewhere between major and non-cameo, but I'm not sure how best to describe that line. Roughly, I'd say that the line is somewhere around Professor McGonagall in Harry Potter, but I'm not sure how to quantify that to the general case. So to be clear, we have an episodes and characters white list, an explicit note that WP:N always works as well, and a note that other "exceptionally central" fictional elements are also OK? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm comfortable erring on the side of inclusion, and setting the bar at "non-cameo" (or "non-minor" or "recurring non-minor"). Again, the goal isn't to turn the gray area into a bright line, but to just set the line at the bottom of the gray area. (Of course, if you can find a better way to phrase it, then by all means.) I might also add that the "exceptionally central" part should be made into "essential", or just left to "anything that is covered in reliable third-party sources". That's how we have an article on the BFG9000. Randomran (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well for those non-minor non-cameo appearance, non-1-time, non-incidental item (such as an unremarkable weapon in a game) we could note that it could reiterate that it may still qualify for inclusion other other notability guidelines.じんない 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with non-cameo, then, I suppose. I still think an essentialness test is needed, though - while the BFG passes WP:N, I think it's important that we try to minimize the pool of articles that pass WP:N but not this, and that the BFG can readily pass an essentialness test (as it is a particularly vivid encapsulation of the attitude and style of Doom, which is a central part of Doom's cultural legacy). Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The test for "essentialness" is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It's not ideal, but it's the best test of importance we have thus far. Again, the BFG9000 would be just a gun if it weren't for the fact that it attracted a buzz as a "big fucking gun". The coverage followed from its being an iconic part of the series. If we combine that general "coverage in reliable independent sources" test with a specific "white list" for non-cameo characters and episodes, I think we'll have a prong that's reasonably precise. Maybe it won't be a bright line, but at least it will give us a control against weak WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A test based on some sort of evidence should work. I don't think a test based on white and a black list will work, anymore than a test of whether a fictional element is more chalk or cheese. If Excalibur is important/essential/central to understanding the work , then you can argue so too is every fictional weapon. Only a test based on some sort of evidence will provide useful guidance, so we can drop requirements that an element of fiction has to be "non-cameo" or "non-stock". --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I'm getting this.

I read through the draft and skimmed this page a bit. Instead of addressing anything specific, I have a question: by this guideline as it is right now, where do articles like World of One Piece, Dune Universe and World of Naruto stand? IIRC before now there's never been much clarification on any fiction articles besides characters, so articles about the setting of a story(more specifically, the settings of exceptionally long series that are fairly complex and play a huge role within it) were always left in some sort of vague limbo. These easily meet #1 and #2 of the three-pronged thing, but what about #3? How can a setting have specific real-world notability through third party sources?- Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A question we purposely left off of this, as these would all fall under the idea of lists of non-notable elements, which seemed to have support from the WP:N RFC but that we have decided to hold off on trying to approach pending a third-party review of that and a deeper workthrough on that point. Mind you, settings can have real world sources (see Locations of Half-Life for one case) but it is rare. --MASEM 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
agreed that it is wise to discuss characters first; I think most of us would agree that whatever is the place for character articles, the place for articles about backgrounds and settings would be slightly more restrictive--but not at all impossible, especially for combination articles such as the ones you mention. And there has certainly been consensus that the really significant places and objects with a major role in the plot of really major fiction can be worth articles. How far down this should go is the actual question.DGG (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say at a minimum any long running fictional series that has a world built around it beyond the confines of the main works that vastly differeniates from our own world either because of its entirely made up, or its set in a made-up parallel universe. Star Wars is a good example of what would likely fall under that criteria while Friends is a good example of what wouldn't.じんない 04:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
However, that reads like a fan-based argument. Instead, consider Camelot. Here's a setting which has featured in dozens of iterations of the myth, by numerous authors over 1200 years or more, applied to a presidential era, refers literarily to a lfawed paradise, or one where a fall from grace is impending, and so on. It's got notability and real world referentiality in droves. Where has someone used "dude, it's like if we were in the star wars universe and had 'the force' and lightsabers'" outside of possible ironic pop culture jokes or fans' own homes? I've seen references to politicians as being like Vader or the emperor, but those belong at those articles. A setting is an element of fiction like any other, and should be required to demonstrate some level of notability external to the fiction, and acknowledged by a source independent of those who profit from the fiction. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Further: I would suggest we reduce the proposal to just say 'Any Element'. Any element of the fiction, character, prop, setting, can be judged by the same criteria, so why differentiate only to unite a line later? As for settings, Why not create 'The Setting of Star Wars' as an article, group the in universe summary of each planet there, the creator content, and the real world notability? If you treat each work as having a setting, instead of 'a seedy cantina', a magic university, an orbiting tactical ttraining platform', and so on, then your'e actually more llikely to build up a sizable stack of real world notabiltiy fro mreviewers wh oset up the premise using their own words to explain where this story happens? ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe element is the best. And yes, any article, including univerise or setting ones should suffice real-world coverage either though commentary on it or the use in other things. Note that, in my example above, Star Wars would also be able to meet that criteria as it certainly has such DVD or developer interviews and has been used as a basis for other non-related works, so I think it is still a good example. However my point was, even if the setting of Friends was also similarly inspiring it likely does not need it's own seperate article as it doesn't really need a seperate article to allow for understanding of the work as a whole that couldn't be summed up in a section.じんない 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Independent Sources

Where to start; I've been trying to get a grip on the threads here and on the new page yonder, but things still seem rather in-flux. I liked the restored version re "Systemic bias" but note that it was cut, cut again, and is now gone again. I share the concerns expressed about the "Independence" section which are now off in archive 41. The view that non-independent sources can in anyway serve to establish notability plays right into the marketing efforts of commercial pop-culture. Just because 'disc 2' had a bit on such and such, doesn't count. Relying on non-independent sources only serves to promote products.

The core of the long-running notability dispute is really not about 'fiction' — it about mass produced commercial product that is nominally in the realm of 'fiction'. Note that the flash points are the usual TV E&C, D&D monsters, video game characters, comic books, &c. Fiction is a far larger container; nobody is seriously asserting that Lady Macbeth is inappropriate for inclusion. See Pride and Prejudice; it's a work of fiction, yet only two of the characters have stand alone articles (which I'm going to now watch for WP:POINT violations). See Moby-Dick; only two characters with articles. Now go look at the coverage of one of the modern commercial properties; you'll likely find dozens of characters and better than a hundred episodes (or spells, or fictional islands; "whatever"-cruft). The whole nature of such franchises is deliberately open-ended; they'll keep turning the crank so long as the target audience responds to the programming. Editors rail about mentioning Wikia as a COI, yet most of the flash point articles are little more than puff-pieces for corporate properties.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with this section is that it reads like a personal essay, and does not provide any guidance per se (see my comments at WT:FICT#Systematic bias for my viw on this). Whilst I share your concerns about commercial bias, I feel that we make have the perfect antidote which is to insist that articles on fictional elements cite non-trivial real-world content. In my experience, articles that are based on marketing material tend to be trivial in content and their style is over reliant on in universe perspective. Because most fancruft is written from an in universe pespective, I feel that the real-world test will filter out most of the marketing flap copy, and any other bias is amply covered by WP:UNDUE. I agree that WP:FICT may not specify what is and is not independent, but this is a broad editorial issue covered in depth elsewhere by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would recomend you reverse your last edit, because I feel this section contains too many unsupported statements to be included in this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe I missed a few of your comments here while I was composing mine, above. And we're discussing this in three sections now. Above, I said it could use a trim, as Phil said in his edit summary. I do feel that the parts about commercialism and fanish devotion need to be in here somewhere. These are core to the issue. Phil is in North America, right? It's just dawn there and he should have a chance to comment. I'm not sure where the others are, but feel that time for talk should be allowed. That said, I have little more time, as it's into evening here. nb: I'm quite strong on the idea of independent sources. Marketing departments are skilled at crafting their guff and every DVD set is packaged with the bonus disc of 'goodies' (none of which counts here), and fan-sites and magazines are hardly independent; they're typically advertising-driven. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is exactlty the issue this new draft of WP:FICT is designed to address, namely that it is based on a compromise regarding sourcing. For a long time now, the sticking point was the requirement that a fictional topic should only have its own stand alone article if it was supported by reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. For most inclusionists, WP:GNG is too narrow to be applied to fiction, so we have broadend the inclusion criteria to allow inclusion of topics supported by other sources which may be questionable, provided the content is non-trival and real-world in both content and perspective.
I would agree that the question of systematic bias is a risk if the sources are not independent, but I am basing my willingness to compromise on premise that if the content of an article is non-trival and real-world, then it will approximate the content of an article which cites reliable secondary sources. I know it is is a gamble, but the issue of bias is dealt with in depth at WP:NPOV, so I don't feelWP:FICT needs to have a whole section on this issue - I would like to keep the guideline as short as possible.
I am therefor proposing that we get rid of the section "Systematic bias", as I object to its opinions which are not supported by evidence. I don't mean to be critical of Phil as a person and I think his views are perfectly valid, but I think this section deals with an issue that is best discussed and debated here on the talk page, rather than being inserted into the guideline itself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be a hell of a compromise; and presumptuous, too — building-in an exception to the overall guideline? What's next, allowing unreliable sources? Huge numbers of articles already get away with citing trivial mentions. The content on 'disc 2', or the official site, or in the Official Guide to …… will certainly be not trivial; the PR-machine is relentless. And, of course, *all* the episodes and characters are important to the marketing director, so none will be omitted from the non-independent sources. WP:NPOV is really not about in/out-of-universe POV or independent/non-independent sources (in the sense used here), so that's not going to work well :(
Jack Merridew 13:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The fact that this guideline is focused on non-trivial and real-world coverage is a huge stride forward in my view. Previous drafts of WP:FICT attempted to widen the inclusion criteria by providing exemptions from WP:N for spinoffs and lists, but the cost of ignoring the quality of coverage was too high for them to obtain broad support. Since non-trivial real-world content is required to write an encyclopedic article, and WP:UNDUE aready provides a check against using sources that promote one viewpoint, then I feel that an article that meets WP:FICT should be encyclopedic and be over reliant on one source. The example I would cite is the article Kender about a fictional race, where the creators' commentary provides most of the article's content. Although the creators are not an independent, the non-trivial real-world coverage does provide some some intersting insight into the development and context of Kender from the persepective of them as fictional characters, not from an in universe perspective which treats them as if they were real. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Then we just throw out the bath water; if the tub is then empty, there was no baby to begin with. Of course, the non-trivial real-world yada, yada will stay. And non-independent sources are fine for providing icing, but they're inappropriate as notability/inclusion criteria. Without independent sources, it's all icing and no beef. And that's about as appealing as such an article would be.
( And please, don't let them know that fictional means not real ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of characters in Pride and Prejudice: An article for Elizabeth Bennet was created 27 July, 2005 by an IP. An article for Fitzwilliam Darcy was created 21 February 2005 by Roy da Vinci. An article for Mr. Bennet was created 14 October, 2005 by Banana04131, but it was merged 3 September, 2007 by Pairadox. An article for Mrs. Bennet was created 3 August, 2006 by George cowie, but it was merged 3 September, 2007 by Pairadox. A redirect for Jane Bennet pointing to Pride and Prejudice#Jane Bennet was created January 15, 2008 by Andrei Iosifovich. A link to Pride and Prejudice was first added to the William Collins disambiguation page on 1 November, 2005, but it looks like it was accidentaly removed 1 January, 2009 by Emerson7. An article for Charlotte Lucas was created 15 October, 2005, but the article was overwritten by an IP on 23 October, 2005 to be about an actress on Bad Girls. The article for Georgiana Darcy was redirected 27 January, 2007 by Cbrown1023 after an AFD where the nominator and 2 other people referred to WP:FICT, although DGG argued to keep saying "For this novel, perhaps all characters are notable." So FICT is partly to blame for there not being that many articles for characters in Pride and Prejudice. --Pixelface (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

←A related concern; the "Real-world coverage" prong states;

"Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary."

Ah… no. The creators and their cohorts will always have self-serving things to say; it's money in their pockets; it's part of the marketing campaign. As I just said above, this can add icing and can be useful for developing an article once inclusion criteria are met via independent commentary (non-trivial real-world yada, yada…)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If we take this out, then we might as well drop back to the GNG. This is one of the key things that we've argued that needs to be in this to meet with how AFDs get kept - we can't use the developer's comments to assert importance (that's the self-serving part), but as long as their information does not fail the cautions of self-published sources, a statement that establishes something about the character is at least sufficient to show that there's a likelihood of being more real-world coverage elsewhere, and the topic should be retained as an article. Mind you, as the guideline suggests, if the topic can't be developed further beyond that one piece of information, further editorial steps such as merging to a larger topic can be done. --MASEM 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with using such developer commentary as a source for details like why some character's hair was done-up in such-and-such a way, but this is listed under 'test for notability' and to use the source for this purpose amounts to allowing absolutely everything that has a marketing effort behind it. The 'elsewhere' you refer to would seem to be someone commenting on the developer commentary. Coupled with the fan-view that it's all important gives us a recipe for unrestrained inclusion. There's always plan b. Jack Merridew 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

god damn it. This conversation was already happening, but got manually archived. Now we're starting all over again. This is how users get marginalized and don't get to continue on this stuff. The last thread on this was archived less than 18 hours after the last comment, by a user involved in that discussion but who didn't like that multiple editors were opposed. This bad faith behavior isn't worth me sticking around for. This entire policy should be shit-canned. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted that; see the plan b links above. Jack Merridew 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Resorting to ArbCom to set policy or guidelines is a bad bad bad idea. They don't want to see it. Yes, there are noted objections to some statements in this, but there is a general agreement from the last month and a half to build this to where it is, and we're at a point where we need to put this into the working hands of editors and assume they'll work with it in good faith - if there are problems, we retool it, including this aspect. --MASEM 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know they don't want to hear it. I'm sorry I'm chipping-in late in this process. There was, I'm sure, a lot of discussion. The core issue wp is facing is it's own scale; there are too many articles for the clueful to keep track of. The ratio of articles to active admins is something like 2500:1. A great many editors (and in this case, ya, I'm thinking fans), never read a Wikipedia name space page; they just edit as their urges tells them to. This proposal seems less a compromise than a hijacking by fans. The scalability issue affect discussions such as this one; this talk page is changing faster than I can read it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I said all this sort of stuff a few days ago, didn't get a reponse, phil used that lack of a reply from him to archive the thread. To recap - non-independent soures are highly likely to be POV - if still involved, then highly PRO-topic, and if disenfranchised by business deals gone awry, then highly ANTI-topic. Neither's acceptable, and while I concede that Kender shows good applications of Developer material in covering the development section, the article has little NON=creator material to substantiate the notability of the Kender, though there are some comments from reviewers. Further discussion of that article belongs there. However, I am with Jack. we've got good, solid, and fairly high standards for notability now; many articles on WP, if held to those standards, would probably fail. Opening the gates wider by lowering the standards so drastically is a bad idea.

I'll go one further. Looking at the systemic bias language below, I'd argue the same effect occurs for modern topics and the amount of creator-spew we see. No dvd goes out now without multiple commentary tracks, many, many movies have adaptations, novelizations, 'movie versions with new pictures!', and so on. Websites are cheap, and so is talk, that's why there's a lot of it out there. This is all a lot of bulk to point out for 'evidence of notability', but it often has little heft, being fluff and hot air. Wikipedia relies more, and well it should, on the few hard nuggets provided by critics, analysts, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of this guideline is not so much to establish what is a good article but instead to set a bar that shows sufficient evidence that an article on the fictional element can be developed more verses the case where the article can only be based on the primary source and thus should be described in an article on the larger context of the work instead. The first two prongs make sure we're not dealing with someone's youtube video of the week, or a character that appears for all of one second on screen. The third requires use to carefully use WP:SPS to make sure we're not stretching for anything tangible to keep.
On the issue with DVD commentaries, the fact that the distribution studio put any effort into assembly that, even if they paid just a $10/hr lackey to compile it from old interview tapes, means the studio at least has some interest, and this is better than having the creator blog about it.
Still, the key thing here is that this is a preliminary bar to retain an article if there's something likely there. If through editorial decisions the amount of information cannot improve, then it still likely that the article should be merged, but in this fashion, we default to keeping an article to try to give it time to improve rather that be heavy handed and remove them. --MASEM 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
But DVD commentary is no different than the creator blogging about it, except that the creator can blog in real time, and on a DVD has to prepare a commentary, though often not even that happens. As for the key thing here, the key thing here is that this entire guideline introduces the 'EVENTUALLY IT WILL COME' rationale for keeping everything, making it, effectively, the antidote to any deletion attempts. At worst, we'll suffer merges, unless something has nothing to merge to, then we're stuck with a lousy non-notable article which cannot be improved, but cannot be deleted because enough editors think something may eventually be said about it. Unfortunately, AfD handles all this stuff quite well now. Editors go out, find a couple skimpy bits of notability, and integrate them, and then point out that there's a veneer of notability, and agree to clean out the cruft. We get a clean stub-like piece, and move on. I see no reason to adjust that to allow for a 2500 pokemon articles because the pokemon company publishes guides to pokemons, and/or licenses other companies to produce the 'official guides to pokemons'. books by the pokemon people about pokemon do not establish notability, they establish that 9 year olds have fat enough allowances to generate a profit there.
When, instead, we get a critique of the 'glassdildo pokemon' in the New York Times, establishing that the Pokemon company has jumped the shark, or they screwed over an artist, who pulled a little mermaid on them, then we can note that one pokemon in the article on Pokemon, and the article on controversies about pokemon. Real World Coverage is the ONLY kind that matters. No one doubts that creator commentaries are great for expanding an article once there is notability established but w msut not revise the rules to put the cart before the horse. ThuranX (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it incredible that we are even having this discussion. 99.99% of the time, a DVD commentary isn't at all independent of the creator ... it's by the creator, an associate of the creator, or an employee of the creator. The remaining .01% is for unusual cases, and generally on classic movies: a reviewer commenting on a film produced in the 1930's by a now-deceased director. Can they be used as sources for articles? Certainly. As sources of notability? Not a chance. I understand the need for being a little looser than the GNG to get some kind of resolution, but treating a DVD commentary as an independent source in order to get there is ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazing

It seems disputed that independent sources are better than non-independent ones. Jack Merridew 09:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aiming for the GNG only? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with the idea of a subject specific guideline. I have a number of serious concerns about this specific proposal that can be summarized as 'too loose' or ( 'the fans strike back' ;).
I am quite amazed that you're objecting to the notion of preferring independent sources. Non-independent sources inherently have a conflict of interest. Jack Merridew 11:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_42&oldid=1202759832"